An investigating officer has the power to file a revised charge-sheet even without further investigation, if the purpose is to correct mistakes or omissions in the first report. The availability of the court's power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of the offence does not bar the investigating officer from filing a revised charge-sheet.

The two petitioners, who stand arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in C.C. 592 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri, have preferred this petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them. The petition has come to be filed in the following circumstances : The first petitioner was a Reserve Sub-Inspector in the Armed Reserve and the second petitioner is his wife. The first petitioner's services were terminated on 19-8-1979 on account of his involvement in a strike organised by the policemen. But subsequently, the Government took a lenient view of the matter and reinstated the first petitioner as well as the other members of the police force, who had also been dismissed from service for their involvement in the strike. Again on 8-8-1980, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, placed the first petitioner under suspension on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him.

2. The Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 98 of 1980 regarding theft and illegal transport of sandalwood billets. After investigating the case, he filed charge-sheet No. 101 of 1980 on 25-10-1980, against four persons, who are now arrayed as accused 3 to 6 in the case under S. 36(a) of the Tamil Nadu Forests Act read with Rules 3 and 7 of the Sandalwood Illicit Possession and Transport Rules. The Judicial II Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri, before whom the charge-sheet was originally filed, directed transfer of the case to the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, since the offences complained of are only triable by a I Class Magistrate. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the four accused mentioned in the charge-sheet. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police filed another charge-sheet viz. charge-sheet No. 7/81 dated 27-1-1981 alleging commission of offence by the two petitioners herein along with the four persons originally charge-sheeted in C.C. 101 of 1980. In the revised charge-sheet, it was averred that the petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy on 3-4-1980, along with the other four accused for committing theft of sandalwood from the patta land in Erabiyanahalli Village.

3. The Magistrate took cognizance of the revised charge-sheet and issued processes to the petitioners also. It is at that stage of matters, the petitioners have come forward to seek the quashing of proceedings.

4. The legal contention put forth by Mr. D. Krishnan, for seeking the quashing of proceedings is that the Investigating Officer is not entitled to file a revised charge-sheet without having done any further investigation in the matter and therefore the second charge-sheet should not have been taken note of by the learned Magistrate. In support of this contention, he places reliance on sub-section (8) of S. 173, Cr.P.C. which reads as follows :-

"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, whereupon 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)." *

The submission of Mr. Krishnan is that only if there had been further investigation and further materials had been gathered, the Inspector could have filed a revised charge-sheet against the petitioners, as they were not originally arrayed as accused in the earlier charge-sheet. The second contention of the learned counsel is that even if the Inspector is entitled in law to file a revised charge-sheet, the evidence gathered against the petitioners is so weak and arti