1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant and others who are accused in C.C. No. 513/95 filed criminal miscellaneous case Nos. 2209/95, 2361/95 and 784/96 before the High Court of Kerala for quashing the prosecution against them. Those petitions were rejected by the High Court by judgment and order dated 11th June, 1998. Hence, this appeal.

3. The prosecution was launched against the present appellant which arose out of an incident which occurred because of a news item in the evening daily "Sudinam" on 2nd February, 1988. The news item was printed and published by one Madhavan at Kannur as per which one tribal girl - Manja, aged about 16 years was raped by one Rajan. Manja and her parents lodged a complaint before the superintendent of police, who transferred the complaint to the appellant herein, who was a Superintendent of Police - Kannur for investigation. On that complaint, a case was registered in crime No. 50/88 under S.228A IPC and S.7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The case was entrusted to the Circle Inspector of police who arrested Madhavan and the printing press was also searched on 12th February, 1988. It is contended that after the arrest at about 8.00 p.m., Madhavan was taken in police jeep to the police station and on the way he was assaulted by the policemen in the jeep. At about 8.30 p.m., he was put in lock up and on 13th February, 1988, he was produced before the Magistrate at Kannur. He complained that he was assaulted by the police and thereby he sustained injuries. After recording the aforesaid statement, the Magistrate enlarged him on bail. For taking treatment for the injuries sustained by him, he went to hospital and got himself admitted there. From there, he lodged an FIR which was registered as crime No. 52 of 1988 under S.143, 323, 324 etc. of IPC against the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur and also six or seven unidentified policemen. The case registered against Madhavan was quashed by the High Court. As there was no progress in the FIR registered by Madhavan, he moved the High Court for entrusting investigation to the CBI. The High Court directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range to investigate the case. Not being satisfied by the said order, Madhavan preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court and by order dated 22nd December, 1989, this Court directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, to investigate and file the report within two months. As there was no progress in the matter within the prescribed time, Madhavan again moved this Court and by order dated 24th September, 1992, this Court entrusted the investigation to CBI and also awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to Madhavan. After investigation, CBI moved the State Government for sanction under S.197 Cr.P.C. and thereafter filed report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam against 12 accused including the present appellant on 27th April, 1995, for the offences punishable under S.324, 341, 342, 357, 219 and 166 IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the said report.

4. Appellant and others filed separate applications for dropping the proceedings on the ground that a final report was filed by the CBI beyond the period of limitation prescribed under S.468 Cr.P.C. and that no application for condoning delay was filed. Those applications were dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27.9.1995 and the delay in filing final report by the CBI was condoned. The said order was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam who directed the Magistrate to dispose of the said applications afresh. That order was challenged by filing the impugned miscellaneous applications before the High Court.

5. The High Court after considering the various decisions cited, held that learned sessions judge has only remitted the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to consider the petition to be filed by the CBI under S.473 Cr.P.C. for condoning delay. The Court a