( 1 ) ). THIS Criminal Revision Application is preferred by accused facing criminal trial before the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 162 of 1997. The petitioners in Misc. Criminal Revision Application No. 2696 of 2000 are co-accused to the present revisioners. The revisioners are aggrieved by an order passed by learned Additional City Sessions judge, Court No. 10, on the 18/05/2000, allowing application Ex. 13 before him in the said Sessions Case, praying for a direction for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the investigating agency. The said application, Ex. 13, was tendered by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, stating that deceased-Riddhiben Nareshbhai Patel was taken to Civil Hospital by Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Patel, where history was given that her mother sustained electric current while heating water with electric heater for bathing. However, the Panchnama of the place of incident is indicative of the fact that the deceased died of kerosene burns and not electric current. It is not the case that the fire started because of short circuit in the current and, therefore, further investigation was prayed for. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge, after considering the various aspects, allowed the application and directed the Investigation Officer to make further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Two of the accused persons, on being aggrieved, have preferred this revision application to challenge the said order. 1. 1 misc. Criminal Application No. 2696 of 2000 is prefrred by accused-Nareshkumar Mavjibhai Devani challenging the said order, not by way of revision, but by way of a petition for quashment of the said order.

( 2 ) THE revisioners are represented by learned Advocate, Mr. Kanabar. Learned Advocate, Mr. Kanabar, submitted that the revisioners assail the impugned order on the ground that the Sessions Court could not have ordered further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after cognizance. It was also submitted that the power was exercised by the Sessions Court at the behest of the complainant, which is also not permitted. Mr. Kanabar submitted that this application is given only with a view causing harassment to the accused persons. The incident is of 2/03/1997 and, after such a long time, this application was moved. He submitted, therefore, that this revision may be allowed and the order in question may be set aside. 2. 1 mr. Kanabar placed reliance on the following decisions :- (1) Randhir Singh Rana v. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1997 SC 639. (2) Shantilal Jethalal Shah v. State of Gujarat, 1997 (2) GCR 33 (Guj) (UJ ). (3) Rikhab Das v. Manak Chand and Another, 1998 Cri. L. J. 3075.

( 3 ) STATE of Gujarat is represented by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Desai. He submitted that, as per the law settled by this Court in Sarlaben Virsing Bamaniya and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another, 1989 (1) GLH, 148 and Surendrabhai Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1985 GLH 299, investigation can be ordered under Section 173 (8) even after taking cognizance. 3. 1 it was contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Desai, that the decisions relied upon by learned Advocate, Mr. Kanabar, do not lay down the proposition as contended by the revisioners. He submitted that the decision in Shantilal Jethalal Shah v. State of Gujarat (supra) was in facts of that case and the Apex Court, in Randhir Singh Ranas case, has not laid down any proposition that further investigation cannot be ordered after taking cognizance. He, therefore, submitted that both the matters may be dismissed.

( 4 ) HAVING regard to rival side contentions, there is no dispute on the fact that the application for further investigation was given and further investigation was ordered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, after framing