1. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 30th December 2009 in Special C.C. No. 46/2008 passed by the 31st Addl. & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

2. Petitioner is accused No.2 in C.C.No.46/2008. He has been charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 201, 409, 120, 468 and 471 of IPC, further read with Section 13 sub-section (2) read with Section 13 sub-section (1) clause (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short referred to as ‘the Act’)

3. The case of the prosecution is that, accused Nos.1 and 6 being the Branch Managers of the State Bank of Mysore, Nagli Branch, Kolar district during the period between 20th June 1998 to 20th June 2002, they entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7 to 15 to misappropriate the subsidy amount by making use of the forged document to cheat Karnataka Khadi and Village Industries Board and also to screen the evidence. It is in this regard, the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short referred to as ‘the C.B.I.’) was authorised to investigate the matter as regard to the misappropriation of large amount. The C.B.I. on making preliminary enquiry, registered the complaint and after conducting investigation submitted charge sheet alleging that the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 201, 409, 120 and 471 of IPC, further read with Section 13 sub-section (2) read with Section 13 subsection (1) clause (c) and (d) of the Act. Accused No.2-petitioner herein and accused No.6 filed an application under Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. interalia seeking discharge.

4. Accused Nos.2 and 6 contended that, the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. is not an Officer in-charge of the Police Station, as such, he cannot file the charge sheet. As per the Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual-2005 (for short referred to as the ‘CBI Manual’), the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. is the Station House Officer and is the only competent Officer to sign the charge sheet and forward the same. The said application was resisted by the State Public Prosecutor interalia contending that, sufficient material was collected against the accused to file the charge sheet. The Superintendent of Police alone is not the Station House Officer to file the charge sheet. The Inspector of Police is the competent officer and has file the charge sheet, which has been forwarded by the Superintendent of Police as required under Section 173 subsection (2) of Cr.P.C.

5. Trail Court on the basis of the contentions raised framed the following points for consideration:

“1. Whether the A1 and A6 establish that the charge sheet filed at the instant case is in contravention of provisions u/s 168, 169, 170 and 1783 of Cr.P.C. as such the charge sheet is require to be returned for proper presentation after curing the defect?

2. What order?”

6. Trial Court on appreciation of the contentions and the materials collected by the Police and further referring to the decisions of the Apex Court held that the charge sheet has been endorsed by the Superintendent of Police and is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, held that the presentation of the charge sheet is proper. Further held that there is no need for returning the charge sheet for proper presentation, accordingly, it rejected the application. It is against the said order, this petition has been filed.

7. Sr. S.G. Bhagawan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in terms of the provisions of C.B.I. Manual, the Superintendent of Police is the authority and he is the officer in-charge of the Police Station, as such, he alone is empowered to prepare and submit the final report to the court. However, the charge sheet now filed is not based on the report prepared by the Superintendent of Police, but it is prepared by the Police Inspector, C.B.I. and the Superintendent of Police has only f