P.S.O. 588A, issued under S. 9 of the Madras District Police Act, is invalid and does not have statutory force. Non-observance of P.S.O. 588A does not constitute an illegality and does not warrant quashing of the prosecutions launched.

These two petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the question raised is identical.

2. Both these petitions have been filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records in pending prosecutions and quash the proceedings therein as not maintainable on the sole ground that the investigating Agency had not followed the provisions of police, Standing Order (for short 'P.S.O.') 588A.

3. Facts in each of the petitions need not have to be stated, for, both the counsel fairly state that in respect of the same incident, two complaints had been given by opposite parties both of which resulted in final reports being filed by the investigating Agency.

4. The question, whether non-observance of the provisions of P.S.O. 588A would constitute illegality comes up for consideration quite often and it will be better to set at rest any controversy so that similar petitions canvassing this issue could be avoided in future.

5. All the decisions of this Court and a few of the apex Court have been placed before me. It is better to initially look into the law enuneiated by the Supreme Court about the extent of validity of P.S.O. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venugopal, 1964 AIR(SC) 33, 1964 (70) CRLJ 16, 1964 (3) SCR 742, 1965 (2) MLJ(SC) 87, 1965 (2) MLJ 87 : 1964 AIR(SC) 33, 1964 (70) CRLJ 16, 1964 (3) SCR 742, 1965 (2) MLJ(SC) 87, 1965 (2) MLJ 87) the Supreme Court was concerned about the statutory force of P.S.O. 145. The observations of the Supreme Court need extraction.

"It is contended that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation of Crime are superseded by this Standing order and so the investigation by the Inspector, C.I.D., was illegal. In our opinion, there is no substance in this argument. It appears to us that this standing order is nothing more than administrative instructions by the Government of Madras and has not the force of law. It is worth noticing in this connection that in the Madras Police Standing Orders as published by the Government of Madras it is mentioned in the prefatory note that the order marked with asterisk were issued by the Inspector General of Police under S. 9 of the Madras District Police Act. The Standing O. 145 is not marked with asterisk and it could be safely held that it was not issued under S. 9 of the Madras District Police Act. The marginal note against the order as pointed shows that it was issued by a Government order of the Home Department dated October 12, 1985. It does not appear that this was done under any statutory authority. There can be no doubt that quite apart from the fact that the Government may and often should issue instructions to its officers, including police officers, such instructions have not however the authority of law. We are not satisfied therefore that the standing order No. 145 had the force of lawWe are further of opinion that in any case, the requirement of this order was merely directory and not mandatory. Non-compliance with the provisions of this order therefore does not make the investigation of the case illegal." *

It is quite true that P.S.O. 145 does not contain an asterisk mark, while P.S.O., 588A contains the said mark. The Supreme Court observed, that since P.S.O. 145 had not been marked with asterisk, it can safesly be held that it was not issued under S. 9 of the Madras District Police Act.

6. There is no controversy that P.S.O. 588A has been issued under S. 9 of the Madras District Police Act. It that be so, it has to be decided, whether the asterisk mark would make any difference to hold that unlike P.S.O. 145, P.S.O. 588A will have to be deemed to be mandatory.

7. Before this question is answered, a quick survey of the decisions rendered by this Court will be needed. In A. R. Veerapandian v. State by the Collector of North Arcot at Vellore, 1979 LW Cri 165, Paul, J., while considering P.S.O. 145, observed thus.

"The Madras police standing orders do not show that they were rules framed under any statute. Prima f