GUPTA, J. - (1.) -This petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 12. 11. 1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra whereby, refusing to accept the Final Report, he ordered that the investigation be conducted by the C. I. D. (C. B. ).
(2.) MR. Hedau, learned counsel for the accused petitioner contended that the Magistrate had no power to direct the police for investigation by a particular agency. Relying on the case of Tula Ram vs. Kishore Singh (1), he urged that the Magistrate on perusal of Final Report could issue the process against the accused but he had no power to direct further investigation by a particular police agency. Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent tried to su-pport the order of Magistrate. He pointed out that there are serious allegations against the petitioner but the local police did not investigate the matter properly, and therefore, the Magistrate was justified in passing the impugned order. Learned P. P. submitted that though the Magistrate should not have given direction for investigation by a particular agency, yet this Court may pass appropri-ate order keeping in view the allegations against the petitioner. The relevant facts of the case are these:-A complaint was filed by Om Prakash, Member of the Khadi Industrial Producers Cooperative Society, Balotra alleging that Panney Singh, Manager of the Society had committed embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs. This complaint was forwarded by the Magistrate under Sec. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the Police Station, Balotra, where F. I. R. No. 55/97 was regis-tered. The police after investigation gave Final Report. The coplainant filed protest petition. The learned Magistrate having gone through the police papers, directed investigation into the matter by the Dy. S. P. The police on investigation again submitted Final Report. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order directed further investigation by C. I. D. (C. B. ). The police investigates a case of cognizable nature under Chapter XII of the Code. On the completion of the investigation, the police files a report under Sec. 173 Cr. P. C. If on investigation the police comes to the conclusion that no offence was committed, it files negative report which commonly known as Final Report. On the consideration of the police report, the Magistrate may adopt any of three courses. First, he may take cognizance of the offence and issue process against the accused. Second, he may accept the Final Report as such. Third, he may direct further investigation in the matter if he finds that the investigation was not properly done.
(3.) IN the instant case, the Magistrate adopted the third course. It cannot be said that the Magistrate has committed any illegality when he directed re-investigation of the case. It is not material that the Magistrate had earlier also directed re-investigation. The Magistrate in exercise of power under Sec. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. may direct investigation more than once. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be set aside on the mere ground that the Magistrate had earlier also directed further inves-tigation by the Dy. S. P. In the case relied on by the learned counsel by the petitioner, this matter has not been considered by the Apex Court as to whether the Magistrate may direct further investigation when the police files Final Report. This point was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra (2), wherein it was clearly held that in cases where a Final Report is submitted by the police the Magistrate may make an order for further investigation. The order of investigation is given by a Magistrate under Sec. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. There is nothing in Sec. 150 (3) Cr. P. C. to hold that order for further or re-investigation cannot be given more than once. In the instant case, the Magistrate has not acted upon the protest petition. He did not treat the protest petition as the complaint and did not proceed to hold inquiry under Chapter XV of the Code. Instead he directed further investigation. It is obvious that the direction of further investigation has not been made after taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 190 Cr. P. C. There is, thus absolutely no illega-lity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing further investigation. ;