STATE Vs. RAJ KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal revision has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation aganist an order dated 19 3.1991 of the learned Special Judge, Delhi by which it was directed that further investigation should be conducted and in the first instance the prosecution/Investigating officer must approach the concerned sanctioning Authority before coming to the Court tofind out if it would grant or refuse sanction to prosecute the respondent. Infact the closure report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Code for short) was filed by the CBI in respect of four criminal case Nos. 57 to 60 of 1991 against four different sets of accused persons.

(2.) So far as the respondent is concerned, the case was registered against him on 11.5.1988 on the allegations that while posted as Junior Engineer, MCD, New Delhi, he amassed assets disproportionate to known sources of his income. The case was mainly based on the recovery of special bearer bonds of Rs. 5 lakhs during search of his hause while investigation was going on in another case against his father-in-law.

(3.) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Abhinandan Jha and Others appellants v. Dinesh Misra and Roopchand Lal and another v. State of Bihar and Another, Criminal Appeal Nos. 218 and 238 of 1966 reprted in AIR 1968 SC 117, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that though the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct the police to submit as charge sheet, he certainly has ample jurisdction to give direction to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code to makea further investigation. If after considering the final report, the Magistrate feels that the investigation is unsatisfactory or incomplete or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to him to decline to accept the final report and direct the police to make further investigation.