1. This Criminal revision case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1545 of 2017 made in C.C.No.1298 of 2015 by order dated 29.04.2017.

2. The first respondent/State filed a case against the petitioners/accused for the alleged offence under Section 147, 148, 448, 341, 323, 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 4 of TNPHW Act and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act on 05.01.2014, in Crime No.21 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police. After investigation, the respondent police filed a final report on 08.12.2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 352, 323, 506(ii) read with 149 of IPC and under Section 3 of TN Medical Service Persons and Medicare Service Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2008 and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention and Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

3. Though after investigation, the final report (charge sheet) had been filed by the respondent police on 08.12.2014, before the Trial Court, on 28.03.2017, the respondent prosecution had come forward to file a petition under Section 173(5) and (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer seeking permission of the Court to let in the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act issued by one K.T.Ramkumar dated 22.01.2014 and one L.Karthikeyan dated 22.01.2014 , as additional documents.

4. The said petition was filed by the respondent/State seeking such permission from the Trial Court to file the said documents i.e., certificate issued under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, for the reason that, during the investigation, though the said certificates were obtained by the respondent State/Investigating officer on 22.01.2014, due to inadvertence, the same had not been filed along with charge sheet where the compact disc alone had been submitted to the Court. Only subsequently, according to the prosecution, they noticed that the certificates under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act had been left without filing the same before the Court. Therefore, the prosecution had come forward with the present petition dated 28.03.2017 seeking such permission from the Trial Court.

5. Opposing the said petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the revision petitioners/accused before the Trial Court. The main contention raised on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court was that, the said petition filed by the prosecution was not maintainable as the investigation was over and a final report was filed therefore, the documents said to have been inadvertently omitted to be submitted along with the final report, cannot be filed subsequently, invoking the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code as the said Section only deals with further investigation, therefore, the said petition can never be filed under Section 173(5) and under Section 173(8) of the Code.

6. The further submission raised by the accused before the Trial Court opposing the said petition of the prosecution was that, it was claimed by the prosecution that the said certificates issued by two persons dated 22.01.2014 were collected by the prosecution which were purported to be under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, during investigation, further the statement given by the said two persons under Section 161 of the Code, which was recorded by the investigating officer, did not indicate any such certificates issued by the two persons. Moreover, there was no Mahazar available for collecting those two certificates from the respective witnesses. Therefore, raising these objections on the side of the accused, it was contended before the Trial Court that the said petition filed by the prosecution cannot be accepted or entertained and therefore, the same was liable to be rejected and the said two certificates purported to have been issued under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act on 22.01.2014, by two witnesses, should be rejected in toto.

7. The learned Tri