The investigating officer is not legally required to seek court permission before conducting further investigation under S.173(8) of the Code.

1. Is it mandatory for the investigating agency or officer to seek and obtain permission of the Trial Court for conducting further investigation under S.173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), after filing final report under S.173(2) of the Code? This is the core question that arises for consideration in the present case.

2. A case was registered by the Vigilance and Anti - Corruption Bureau (VACB), Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram as V.C.No.2/2004 / SCT alleging commission of corrupt practices in relation to purchase of medicines in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for the year 2003-2004. After completing the investigation, final report was filed in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram against the respondents for the offences under S.13(1)(d) and S.15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under S.120B I.P.C.

3. The Court below took cognizance of the offences on the basis of the final report. The applications for discharge filed by some of the accused under S.239 of the Code were dismissed by the Trial Court.

4. The second accused made a petition to the Chief Minister of Kerala to issue a direction to the Director, VACB for conducting further investigation in the case. The aforesaid petition was forwarded to the Director, VACB. He ordered the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Investigation Unit - I, Thiruvananthapuram to conduct further investigation in the case. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, VACB filed an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to conduct further investigation in the case.

5. The Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the investigating officer seeking permission to conduct further investigation in the case. The Trial Court observed that the investigating agency had no case that any fresh facts had come to light or that it had obtained further evidence over and above what was collected or known earlier and therefore, the condition precedent to exercise the right under S.173(8) of the Code was not satisfied.

6. The State has filed this revision petition challenging the legality and propriety of the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court.

7. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the respondents / accused.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigating officer has right under S.173(8) of the Code to conduct further investigation and it is not necessary to obtain the permission of the Trial Court for that purpose. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that, though the application filed by the investigating officer before the Trial Court contained a prayer for granting permission to conduct further investigation, it was only a formality and the Trial Court should have granted permission for such investigation or it should have treated the application as an intimation regarding the further investigation proposed to be conducted in the case.

9. S.173(1) of the Code states that, every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay. S.173(2) of the Code states that, as soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the prescribed form stating the particulars prescribed.

10. S.173(8) of the Code states that, nothing in S.173 shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a