Honble SINGH, J.—In these petitions common question of law has arisen for decision. It is, therefore, proper that they should be disposed of by a common order.

(2). Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(3). These petitions have been filed against the following orders passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara,

(1) Order dated 9.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 52/1994.

(2) Order dated 23.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 48/1994.

(3) Order dated 23.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 11/1994.

(4) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 75/1994.

(5) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 95/1994.

(6) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 56/1994.

(7) Order dated 22.12.1994 passed in Criminal Case No. 52/1994.

(8) Order dated 23.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 49/1994.

(9) Order dated 23.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 44/1994.

By the above mentioned orders, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, declined to treat the report submitted by the Police officers after conducting investigations and, directed the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, to get the investigations done again by a Police Officer, competent to con- duct investigations.

(4). The grounds on which the learned Judicial Magistrate refused to treat the reports submitted before him as reports under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code:-

(a) the investigations were substantially conducted by Head Consta- bles, who are not empowered to conduct investigations into cognizable offence and therefore the investigations were void,

(b) the site plans did not mention the names of the persons who witnessed the commission of offences,

(c) the reports were not in the hand writing of the Officer-Incharge of the Police Station and, there was violation of the provisions of Rule 1.8.3 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, and

(d) there was breach of the provisions of Rule 3.8 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965.

(5). The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Head Constables who conducted investigations wholly or partly, were legally competent to conduct investigations, under the directions and supervisions of the Officers Incharge of the Police Stations and the final opinion about the result of investigations was formed by the Officer Incharge of the Police Stations and the reports were also signed by the Officers Incharge of the Police Stations, and, therefore, there was no violation of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 and the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate that the investigation was vitiated and the reports could not be treated as reports under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was not correct. It is, further submitted by him that omission to mention the names of witnesses in the site plan or the inspection memos and the omission to make entries in the case diary of some facts noted by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his order, neither vitiate the reports submitted under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, nor the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in refusing to apply his mind to them under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with a view to find out whether any offence/offences had been committed and whether cognizance thereof should be taken by him, having regard to the evidence collected by the police. The learned Public Prosecutor has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate be directed to treat the reports submitted before him as reports under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and pass orders according to law.

(6). The learned counsel for the petitioners has supported the impugned orders.

(7). The first question that arises for consideration is whether a Head Constable Police, is empowered to conduct investigation if he is directed to do so, by the Officer Incharge of the Police St

Click Here to Read the rest of this document