HARGOVIND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revisionists. Perused the record. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 5.2.2001, the report of the Superintendent of Police, district Bhind, has been submitted.

(2.) THE aforesaid report has also been perused. The accused applicants feel aggrieved by the order of the Special Judge (Dacoity), district Bhind, dated 1.1.2001 where under, on perusal of the evidence and materials brought on record, the Special Judge had declined to accept the final report submitted by the Police, the investigating agency, and had directed for proceeding further in accordance with law and submit the charge sheet.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicants has urged drawing support from the observations made in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 117, that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to call upon the Police to submit a charge sheet when they have sent a report under section 169 of the Code, that no case was made out for sending up an accused for trial. In its aforesaid decision, it may be noticed, the Apex Court had observed that if the Magistrate feels, after considering the final report, that the investigation is unsatisfactory, or incomplete, or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct the Police to make further investigation, who may submit a charge sheet, or, again submit a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. If, ultimately, the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1) (b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the Police, expressed in the final report.