Point of law : Power qua the Investigating Agency/Officer is thus legislatively intended to be available at any stage of the proceedings. The recommendation of the Law Commission in its 41st Report which manifestly heralded the amendment, significantly had limited its proposal to the empowerment of the investigating agency alone.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

2. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge/Special Court CBI No. 06, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 3444/2019 Crime No. 09 (A) of 2014 under Section 120-B, 409, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist's application under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. for further investigation has been rejected by means of the judgment impugned.

4. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that charge-sheet was filed on 15.03.2017 on the basis of records and evidences collected by the Investigating Officer, but in Para 16.30 of the charge-sheet the Investigating Officer has mentioned that the opinion/report of the Central Forensic Laboratory (CFSL) Chandigarh in respect of the questioned handwritings and signatures is awaited, which will be submitted in the Court as and when it is received. It has also been submitted that when he be came aware that the CFSL report was sent to the Investigating Officer only on 03.05.2017, and no definite opinion was expressed with regard to certain documents being in the handwriting of the accused/revisionist, the revisionist filed an application on 25.11.2021 for further investigation on the ground that the charge-sheet has been filed without waiting for the CFSL report. Also the CFSL expert has requested for other specimens to be provided to him to submit a definite opinion. Therefore, it can be deemed that no fair investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency. Only the CFSL report can prove the alleged offences against the revisionist, therefore, a request was made that the learned trial court should direct further investigation by sending other specimen of the accused handwriting for a definite opinion by the CFSL expert.

5. Sri. Shiv. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the CBI has pointed from the report of the CFSL Scientist, which has been filed as annexure-03 of the application of interim relief, that in the first page itself, there is a mention of the specimen that were provided of writing of the revisionist. They were mentioned in Sub-Para 1 from S1 to S39, S65 to S104, S125 to S129, S136 to S147 and S160 to S171. There were other specimens provided of other accused, namely, Pateshwari Prasad Shukla, Ravindra Kumar Shukla, Arvind Kumar Shukla, Ravi Prakash Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Goel, Raj Kumar Goel, Vishal Kumar Mathur, Rakesh Singh, Ashok Kumar Awasthi, Krishna Tripathi and Mahendra Kumar Jain. It is not with respect to the revisionist alone that the scientist has made observations in paragraph 8, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist. It is with respect to other accused, whereas certain other documents have definitely been found to be written by the accused/revisionist. The opinion that has been expressed by the Scientist is definite with respect to the accused/revisionist only. Some specimens were found questionable, and therefore corroboratory evidence are asked for by the CFSL expert.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that no application by the accused under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable. He has read out the entire Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. to show that it is part of a scheme of 8 Sub-Sections. They all relate to the Investigating Agency/Officer making a request for further investigation or a Magistrate on its own Suo-Moto coming to a conclusion that further investigation is necessary, could order the same. There was in the Section itself that if any right of the accused/revisionist to make such an application he has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Athul Rao vs. State of Karnataka decided on 18.08.2017 reported in 2018 (14) SCC 298, where the