JUDGMENT :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in pertaining to the order in CMP No. 951 of 2021 in C.C. No. 220 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, at Villupuram, dated 06.04.2022 and set aside the same, consequently allow the CMP No. 951 of 2021 in C.C. No. 220 and 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, at Villupuram.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Villupuram, in CMP No. 951 of 2021 in C.C. No. 220 of 2020, whereby the application filed for further investigation on behalf of the prosecution under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Trial Court.

2. The gist of the allegation in this case against the accused is that making a false promise to get a job as Assistant Engineer in the TNEB the accused had obtained money from the defacto complainant and cheated him. By directing the de-facto complainant to come to various places to hand over the amount, payments of money in cash were accepted by the accused. On 28.07.2018, a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs, was given at Woodlands Hotel at Villupuram. On 29.07.2018, a further sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs was given at Elles Chathram Road corner. Another sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs was given on 09.08.2018 at Appollo Medical Shop situated at Trichy to Chennai Road in Villupuram, a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs was given on 07.09.2018, at Avin Milk Shop situated at Villupuram District Collector office and a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given on 14.11.2018, near the Central Co-operative Bank. In the places mentioned in the complaint by the de-facto complainant, the CCTV footages were not collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation. This apart the accused had also contacted the defacto complainant in his mobile No. 9443152542 to 9894298278 and the CDR particulars were not collected during the course of investigation. Further, in respect to certain documents produced along with the final report certificates as required under Section 65B of The Indian Evidence Act were not furnished. Therefore, for conducting further investigation and bringing all these materials on record and the application was filed on behalf of the prosecution. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court by passing the following order:

“The petition has been filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for ordering further investigation. Accordingly to him the CCTV footage and CDR details are not collected by the Investigation Officer. Perused records it is seen that the trial has already been commenced hence the petition filed and the learned APP on his own instance is not maintainable. Accordingly this Petition is dismissed.”

3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner would submit that firstly, the reasoning that the application is filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor on his own is factually incorrect and it is filed on the instructions of the respondent/Police. The second reasoning that the trial has already commenced and the petition need not to be entertained is fallacious. In support of his contention, he would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1999 SC 2267, wherein in paragraph No. 2 it was held as follows:

“.....Powers of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the court took cognizance of any investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 1791. The only rider provided by the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation. In such a situation the power of the c