The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the power of the Magistrate to direct investigation and the proper procedure for dealing with offences committed in the course of a judicial enquiry.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 20-6-1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad on a petition filed by him under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is engaged in the jewellery business at Kodungallur in Thrissur District. There was an allegation of theft of some gold ornaments weighing about 17 sovereigns. A case was registered as Crime No. 141/CR/94 of the CB CID, Ernakulam. In course of investigation, it is alleged that the investigating team of Crime Branch seized some old gold ornaments from his shop at about 7 p.m. on 4-4-1905 on threat of arrest. The Divisional Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CB CID, Thrissur told him that the petitioner has received stolen gold ornaments and as such he would seize the same out of fear, the petitioner produced some gold ornaments which were seized by the police. Thereafter, he filed a petition under section 451 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court below for return of the gold ornaments to him on proper security on the ground that the allegation of his having received the same as stolen property is false. On the contrary he contended that he had purchased it from one Dhinakaran, who is another jeweller, for the purpose of business. But, while rejecting the petition, the learned Magistrate made an observation that the circumstances in this case give room for an investigation into the matter so as to find out whether the petitioner had committed offences punishable under sections 465 and 411 of IPC. The Ist respondent therein, who is the Divisional Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CB CID, Thrissur, was directed to investigate and report regarding the possible commission of offence under sections 465 and 411 of IPC by the petitioner under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. He suspected that an offence under S. 465 has been committed on the ground that the petitioner was found to have produced some forged documents in this criminal proceeding to be used as evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to give such a direction to the Ist respondent, who is not an officer in charge of a police station under section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, since the offence under section 465 as defined in section 463, IPC is said to have been committed in the course of a judicial enquiry in the Court, a direction of this nature is incompetent under section 195 of the Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the Magistrate having got this information in course of an enquiry, he has got the jurisdiction to direct for an investigation in exercise of his powers under section 190(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C.

5. The only point for consideration in this case is whether the impugned order of the learned Magistrate can be sustained in law.

6. There is no dispute that the Divisional Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CB CID, Thrissur is not an officer in charge of any police station. No notification has been issued making him the officer in charge of the concerned police station in respect of the said crime case. Similar such question came up for consideration before this Court in State of Kerala v. Moosa Haji, (1993) 2 Ker LT 609. In that case, this Court laid down as follows :-

"A place or post declared by Government as police station must have a police officer in charge of it and if he, for any reason, is absent in the station house, the officer who is next junior in rank present in the police station shall perform the function as officer in charge, of that police station. The primary responsibility for investigation of a cognizable case reported in that station vests with such police officer. Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct such officer in charge of the police station to investigate any cognizable case over which such Magistrate has jurisdiction. On the face of the above principle, a Magistrate cannot order any police officer, o