( 1 ) THE State through the Public Prosecutor assails the Order dated 29-8-2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Cri M. P. No. 820 of 2000 in Sessions Case No. 276 of 1999.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix germane for an effective adjudication of the matter may be set forth thus :the Inspector of Police, Task Force, on a tip off from the Delhi Police along with his team accompanied by Delhi Police proceeded to the Electrical Shop situated at Toli Chowk, found A-10 therein, questioned his complicity when A-10 said to have made a confession before him pursuant to which he seized certain articles under the cover of a panchanama. On a letter addressed by him informing, inter alia, the action taken by him that far, to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Hyderabad, who is competent to investigate into such offences, the crime has been registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, White Collar Offences, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, who eventually laid the charge sheet against the accused for the said offences before the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 153-A, 153-B, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity the IPC ), Sections 25 and 35 of the Arms Act; and Sections 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after having taken cognizance of the offences, committed the case duly to the Court of Sessions. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, after having taken the said case on file as S. C. No. 276 of 1999, framed charges for all the said offences enumerated above; and posted it for trial by fixing the schedule. On 17-8-2000, when one Sri M. Venkat Rao, Inspector of Police, Task Force, North Zone, was being examined as P. W. 1, during the course of his examination-in-chief, when the witness was deposing about the seizure of certain articles pursuant to the confessional statement said to have been made by the first accused in the case, an objection was taken by the learned defence counsel on the premise, that what the witness speaking was hearsay evidence, that he was not an investigating officer and that he was not competent to record confessional statement of the accused and effect seizure of the properties in his capacity as a Police Officer. On that objection, further examination of the witness could not be proceeded and was postponed. At that juncture, the Public Prosecutor, who was conducting the trial in the case, seems to have filed Cri. M. P. No. 820 of 2000.

( 3 ) THAT application having been opposed and after having heard both sides, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge framed the following points for his determination : (1) Whether the de facto complainant Sri M. Venkat Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Task Force, North Zone, Hyderabad, was competent to investigate the offence and to record the statements of the accused, arrest them and register the case? (2) Whether the de facto complainant Sri. M. Venkata Rao cannot speak about his investigation since he is the de facto complainant only? (3) Whether the prosecution can let in any evidence through Sri M. Venkat Rao excepting giving report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and arrest of the accused?after having thus formulated the points for determination, the learned Judge proceeded to answer all the points together. Under the impugned Order, the learned Judge held that P. W. 1-the de facto complainant could depose with regard to his complaint and arrest of the accused and he could not depose with regard to the confessional statements, and confession-cum-seizure panchanama recorded by him. The learned Judge was of the view that the Apex Court in several decisions decided that the de facto complainant could not be an investigating officer and, therefore, P. W. 1 could not investigate the offences and could not have given the evidence in regard to the recordng of the confes