Mool Chand Garg, J.

1. By this petition the Government of NCT of Delhi has assailed the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi dated 29.6.2002, whereby following observations were made and directions were given to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi as well as the Director of Prosecution to review their procedure for checking and scrutiny of the charge-sheet before a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C is filed in the Court after completing the investigation:

A. In the scheme of law as provided under Cr.P.C. at no stage the prosecution is authorized or required to scrutinize the material before the same is put before the Court.

B. The formation of the final opinion is within the sphere of incharge of Police Station and the same has been abdicated to another agency, i.e., prosecution Department which is not within the scheme of code.

C. The present scheme is in violation of the law laid down in the case of Rishbud and R. Sarla.

D. It is not in the scheme of the code for supporting or sponsoring any joint operation between the Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor for filing the report in the Court.

E. That there is no dispute that the Investigating Officer can of his own initiative seek legal advice from any source including the prosecution department. However, the same should be before formation of opinion by the incharge of the police station and not thereafter.

F. Lastly the entire procedure of checking and scrutiny which has been so institutionalized by way of departmental arrangement between the Delhi Government, Delhi Police and the Director of Prosecution requires to be reviewed as the entire procedure of checking the police files through the prosecution agency at a stage where opinion has already been formed by the Incharge of the police station is only an attempt to evolve a method which is not in consonance with the scheme of law laid down by the Code of Crl. Procedure and by the Honble Supreme Court.

Accordingly directions were given to the concerned authorities to review the procedure within one month.

2. It has been submitted that the aforessaid observations made by the Magistrate and directions contained in the order passed are not in accordance with the provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law dealing with the powers of the Magistrate in this regard and thus, the said order is illegal. It is also submitted that the order is also not in accordance with the legal prnouncements of the Apex Court and this Court from time to time holding that there is no such power vested in the Metropolitan Magistrate/ACMM or the CMM to pass any such order or to issue such directions as no such procedure is contemplated in the Code.

3. The occasion to pass the impugned order came during the pendency of investigation of FIR bearing No. 619/2000 registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar under Section 379/482/411/34 against the respondent/Mukesh. He was arrested in that case and was remanded to judicial custody. He was not granted bail within the period of sixty days. Since the respondent could not have been detained in the Judicial Custody beyond that period without filing of Charge Sheet within the time prescribed under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code), the respondent who had been approaching the Metropolitan Magistrate for his release on bail was released on Bail on the 60th day due to failure of the prosecution to file the Charge Sheet by that time. However on account of the stand of the Investigating officer that he could not file the report despite the completion of investigation within the prescribed period due the directions of the Superior Officer who wanted consultation with the legal advisor of the prosecution the magistrate passed the impugned order by taking suo motto cognizance of the delay in submitting the charge-sheet which occurred on account of directions given to the Investigating Officer by the senior officers to obtain