( 1 ) THE petitioners are the daughters of the deceased who was allegedly murdered by respondent No. 2 and some others. The Police, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet only against respondent No. 2. The case was committed to the Court of Session where the present petitioners gave an application Ex. 5 asking the learned Sessions Judge to order further investigation, and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the said application, on the ground that under S. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he had powers to implead a person not named as an accused, as an accused, if after going through the evidence he thought it fit, but as the evidence was not recorded, the learned Sessions Judge thought that the application deserved to be rejected and he accordingly rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present revision application, and the only question which was posed before this Court was as to whether once the case has been committed to the Court of Session powers of further investigation given to the Magistrate under sub-clause (8) of S. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised by the Sessions Judge. The answer to the question would clearly be in the affirmative. It was a mistaken impression on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to have thought that the application was given under S. 319 whereas in fact it was an application asking him to further investigate the case. S. 173, sub-clause (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :"173. (8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-Section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-Sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-Section (2 ). "

( 2 ) THE Court solicited the assistance of senior Advocates, who were present in the Court, and sufficient time was granted to them for preparing and assisting the Court, and the learned Advocates M/s. H. K. Thakore, K. L. Abhichandani, B. C. Patel, Anil S. Kothari and Nitin Amin as well as the learned Government Pleader Mr. Mayur D. Pandya assisted the Court on all aspects.

( 3 ) THE main thrust of the argument was that if under Sub-Section (8) of S. 173 the Magistrate has powers to further investigate, or if he had powers to ask the police to further investigate the case, then it would not stand to reason that the Sessions Court, which is a superior Court, will not be possessing those powers to ask the police to investigate the case further. The learned Sessions Judges view that under S. 319 on evidence before him he could have impleaded somebody as an accused, who was not named as an accused, is correct, but his impression that the application was under S. 319 was incorrect. The application was in fact under S. 173 Sub-Section (8), as stated above. If the Magistrate had powers to investigate the case further, even after the charge-sheet is submitted, and if the police had powers to independently investigate the case further after the charge-sheet was submitted, then it would not stand to reason and would not sound logical that the Sessions Judge, who was seized of the matter on the matter being committed to him, would not have such powers. The learned Sessions Judges view that the powers can be exercised only at the stage of inquiry and not at the stage of trial does not appear to be sound inasmuch as the matter was adjourned for recording of evidence and before any evidence could be recorded this application Ex. 5 was submitted. If the investigation of the police leaves something to be