BALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the Court of Shri Digvinay Singh, MM, New Delhi in case FIR No. 835/2002 dated 24.9.2002 under Sections 409/420/468/471/477A/120B, IPC, PS Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, ordering further investigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. and directing the police to file the charge -sheet in appropriate Court after obtaining sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Relevant portion of the order reads as under: 'In my considered view, this matter be sent back for further investigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. to DCP, Crime Branch. DCP, Crime Branch is directed to conduct further investigation as per above direction passed and file a charge -sheet in the appropriate Court after sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act.'

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner argues that while directing further investigation, the learned Trial Court could not have directed Investigating Agency to file fresh charge -sheet. It is argued that this direction does not sustainable in law. Learned Counsel places reliance on Abhinandan Jhan and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, : 1968CriLJ97 , wherein it was held: 'There is no power, expressly or impliedly conferred, under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the 'police' to submit a charge -sheet, when they have sent a report under Section 169 of the Code, that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial. The functions of the Magistracy and the police are entirely different, and though, the Magistrate may or may not accept the report, and take suitable action, according to law, he cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police, by compelling them to change their opinion, so as to accord with his view.'

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for State has very fairly conceded that the impugned order directing the Investigating Agency to file the challan is not sustainable in law.