V.G. Palshikar, J-This petition is directed against the order dated 11.1999 passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption, Kota whereby he declined to accept the final report submitted by the policy under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. (2). The facts giving rise to the present petition are undisputed. First Information Report No. 45/96 was lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur against the accused persons complaining of commission of an offence by them punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with sec. 420 and 120-B of IPC. After investigation the investigation Officer came to the conclusion that there is no proof of the accused viz, the first information report of having committed any crime. He, therefore, submitted final report in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Kota. However, the learned Judge by his order of that date refused to accept the final report on the ground that is was being presented by a person other than officer-in-charge of a police station. It is pertinent to note that a Judgment delivered by this Court in SB Cr. Revision Petition No. 146/89 on 111.1989 in the matter of State of Rajasthan

v. Jaswant Singh (1990 CrLR (Raj.) 5), was cited before learned Judge as has been noticed by him in Para No. 5 of his order. However, the learned Judge inspite of the decision ignoring the Judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh relied on an earlier Judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in Mangal Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1985 CrLJ (Raj) 602, wherein it has been observed by this Court that in so far as Sec. 154 Cr.P.C. is concerned, officer-in-charge of the Station House. He, therefore, rejected the final report. (3). It has been stated on affidavit before this Court that the learned Judge has so far refused to accept challan or final report as submitted by any officer of the Anti Corruption Bureau and has not made any orders either accepting or rejecting the papers so filed by the police. This, in my opinion, amounts to abdication of jurisdiction by the learned Judge which he ought not to do. I will however, advert to this aspect later on. (4). Turning to the facts of the case it will be seen that Sec. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 defines various terms used in a Criminal Procedure Code. Sec. 2(o) defines what is officer in charge of a police station. It reads as under:-

“Officer in charge of a police station includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank of such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present.”

(5). Then Sec. 2(s) defines what is a police station. It reads as under: “Police station means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf”

(6). Identical question from the Judgment of this very Judge came up for consideration before this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Hotilal Parashar & Anr. (SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 75 5/99), decided on 29.1999. This Court considered notification issued by Government of Rajasthan on 17.1957 directing that for the purposes of anti corruption cases the Anti Corruption Branch of Rajasthan Police on the whole shall be the Anti Corruption Police Station and by another notification of the same day it was further stipulated that for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act all officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of police will be competent to exercise the powers of officer in charge of a police station. (7). Taking into consideration these notifications the definitions given in Sec. 2(o) and 2(s) of Cr.P.C. in relation to officer in charge and police station, thi