KOSHY, J.

While disposing of an anticipatory bail application, Court of Session, Kozhikode doubting the genuineness of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Inspector General of Police to conduct investigation/inquiry and to take appropriate action. When the above order was challenged, in view of the importance of the questions regarding the extent and scope of the inherent powers of the Court of Session in ordering such investigations, the matter was referred by the learned single Judge (Justice P. V. Narayanan Nambiar) to the Division Bench. Thereafter, when final report was filed after conducting the investigation as directed by the Court of Session, it was also challenged before this Court by the first accused. Apart from the correctness of the order passed by the Court of Session, prohibition under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code and conflicting findings recorded in the final report etc. were also argued.

Facts of the case are very clearly stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the reference order which read as follows :

"One Bindu filed an application, Crl. M.P. No. 1615/97 before the Court of Session, Kozhikode Division under Section 438, Cr. P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 282 of 1997 of Nadakkavu Police Station registered under Sections 361, 366, 366A, 377 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5(1)(a), (c) and (d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. She has alleged in the petition that she was question twice by the police and that she apprehends arrest and ill treatment at the hands of the police. Along with the petition, she filed two affidavits, one in Malayalam attested by a Notary Public and the other in English attested by Advocate K. Thankamani. The application for anticipatory bail was filed through Advocate George Antony. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner Bindu is not an accused in Crime No. 282/97, she is only a witness in the crime and that the police has no intention to arrest her. Normally, in the light of the submission made by the Public Prosecutor, the petition should be closed, but the Court of Session, Kozhikode before which the petition was pending, further considered the matter and chose to take a decision on the following points which according to the Court arose for consideration :

'(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail ?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for any offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code ? and

(iii) Whether any direction is to be issued in the case ?

All the points were considered together and the Court below held that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The petition was dismissed, but with the following directions :

(i) The office is directed to forward the original affidavit filed by the petitioner before this Court along with a copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, so as to consider whether it discloses offences under Sections 182, 211 or any other section of the Indian Penal Code and in case it prima facie discloses any such offence to take further action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

(ii) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by the police in accordance with law.

(iii) The photostat copy of affidavit and the photostat copy of the petition along with the copy of this order will be forwarded to the Inspector General of Police, North Zone, with a direction to constitute a special team with a senior police officer who is not below the rank of the respondent in this case to conduct a through investigation or enquiry into the matters especially the facts stated in paras 18 and 19 of this order and take appropriate action in accordance with law.'

The learned Sessions Judge issued such d