Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 169, 173(2), 173(8)– Further Investigation – Whether the High Court was justified inquashing the entire prosecution instituted by the CBI against theaccused persons for the alleged offences on the ground that theCBI could not have undertaken further investigation under subsection(8) of s.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 andfiled a charge-sheet having once already submitted a final reportunder sub-section (2) of the s.173 of the CrPC (closure report) –Held: There is no bar against conducting further investigation u/s.173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted u/s. 173(2) ofthe CrPC has been accepted – Prior to carrying out a furtherinvestigation u/s. 173(8) of the CrPC, it is not necessary for theMagistrate to review or recall the order accepting the final report –Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlierinvestigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are beingsubjected to investigation twice over – Moreover, investigationcannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fallwithin the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution –The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicableto further investigation – There is nothing in the CrPC to suggestthat the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering anapplication for further investigation u/s. 173(8) of the CrPC –Impugned orders passed by the High Court set aside.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173 – Delay in trial onaccount of further investigation – Held: It is settled law that thecriminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and theSociety even though it has been committed against an individual –Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the Stateand a Court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solelyon the ground of delay – Mere delay in approaching a Court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case – Thoughit may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 169, 173 – Distinctionbetween – Section 169 of the CrPC is silent in making report to theMagistrate, however the Investigating Officer is under an obligationto submit its report to the Magistrate under Section 173 of the CrPC– Though Section 169 of the CrPC does not contemplate making areport, it contemplates of obtaining a bond with or without suretiesfrom the accused to appear if and when so required before theMagistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a policereport and such report is contemplated under Section 173 of theCrPC.Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Non-compliance tosecond proviso to s. 17 – A superior police officer of the rank ofSuperintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is requiredto pass an order before an investigation, if any, for offence u/s.13(1)(e) is commenced – The argument canvassed on behalf of theaccused persons is that there is no such order of the police officernot below the rank of Superintendent of Police in the charge-sheet– Held: In the instant case, this issue was not raised before theHigh Court – Even otherwise, this is a question of fact and a matterof record – If it is the case of the accused that there is no such orderon record, the same may be pointed out to the trial court in thecourse of the trial – It is for the trial court to verify the record, lookinto it and take an appropriate call on this issue in accordance withlaw.Maxim – Nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi – discussed.