N. Krishnan Nair, J.

This is a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexures 1 and 2 and all further proceedings pursuant to the same in C.P. No. 130/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla. The petitioner is accused in C.P. No. 130/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under S.55(a), (i) and (h) of the Abkari Act. The allegation is that on 23.12.1998 the police seized 30 litres of spirit from the house of the petitioner.

2. The Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla, conducted the investigation in the case. Subsequently the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla, submitted a charge sheet before the Court. Since the charge sheet was not accompanied by the chemical examination report the learned Magistrate returned the charge sheet. The Additional Sub Inspector resubmitted the charge sheet. On 15.7.2000 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences upon the charge sheet. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance upon Ext. Al charge sheet since the return of the charge sheet is not covered by R.19(2) of the Criminal Rules of Practice. Therefore it is contended that Annexures Al and A2 and all further proceedings in C.P. No. 130/2000 are liable to be quashed.

3. The question arising for consideration is whether the return of the charge sheet for want of chemical examination report amounts to rejection of the charge sheet as contended by the petitioner. It is true that as per R. I9(2) of the Criminal Rules of Practice the Court shall return the charge sheet only if the same was not accompanied by sufficient number of copies or when the copies were not verified and certified by the Investigating Officer. In this case the charge sheet was returned since it was not accompanied by the chemical examination report. The order of the learned Magistrate is as follows:

"Charge sheet is returned since chemical examination report of thondi articles has not been received".

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order of the Magistrate should be treated as the order rejecting the charge sheet and therefore the police has no jurisdiction to resubmit the very same charge sheet without conducting further investigation under S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I cannot agree. On receipt of a report under S.173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate may accept or, reject the final report or direct further investigation. But it cannot be said that the magistrate has no power to return the charge sheet for curing the defects. The return of the charge sheet cannot be said to be the rejection of the charge sheet. S.173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is not attracted in this case and therefore there is also no scope for re-investigation in this case. I see no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police should not have submitted the charge without further investigation under S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to me, this petition is groundless and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the petition is dismissed.