Judgment

R. L. Narasimham, C J

[1] This is a petition to revise an order dated 8-6-1956, passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Bhadrak, calling for charge-sheet under Section 380 I.P.C. against some persons.

[2] The relevant facts are as follows. On 13-1-1956 the opposite party Krushna Chandra Ghadei made a station diary entry at Chanda-bali P.S. to the effect that some persons surrounded his house and looted away some articles on the previous night. On the next day the Police treated the station diary entry as a regular F. I. R. under Section 395 I. P. C. and submitted final report as false on 25-2-1956. That final report was put up before the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 9-3-1956 and he passed the following order:

"F. Rule (Final report) received. The case is false. Await P. Rule under Section 211 I. P. C. against the complainant as proposed R/N not received. Remind the I. O. to send the R/N of the case. Put up on 24-3-56".

The relevant papers were again put up before him on 30-3-1956 when he passed the following order:

"Perused the report of the C. I. There is no sufficient evidence against the complaint to prosecute under Section 211 I. P. C. F. R. false received. Enter Section 395 I. P. C.

[3] In the meantime, however, as early as 3-3-1956 the informant Krushna Chandra Ghadei had approached the Magistrate with a protest petition anticipating that the police investigation may go against him and requesting the Magistrate to order an enquiry. The Magistrate rightly treated this protect petition as a complaint, examined Krushna Chandra Ghadei on solemn affirmation, and directed that the complaint should be put up for orders along with all the police papers. After several adjournments and after hearing the complainant, the learned Magistrate passed the following order on 8-6-1956:

"Complainant is present, F. F. received. Read the documents. Heard the lawyer. Call for charge sheet under Section 380 I. P. C. to 26-6-56".

[4] Mr. Kanungo appearing on behalf of the petitioners, challenged the legality as well as the propriety of the aforesaid order calling for charge sheet. First of all he urged that once the Magistrate had accepted the final report of the Police and declared the case to be false as early as 9-3-1956, he had no jurisdiction, on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complaint, to revise his previous opinion and direct the Police to submit charge sheet, in the absence of any further materials. Secondly, he contended that in any case a vague order calling for charge-sheet against nineteen persons named in the original report was improper and the Magistrate should have scrutinised the police papers more carefully and given clear directions as to which of the accused persons should be put on trial.

[5] The first contention of Mr. Kanungo is practically concluded by a Single Judge decision of this Court, Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla v. The State, 1958 AIR(Ori) 11) (A). There it was held that even though the final report of the Police may be accepted by the Magistrate in the first instance, there is nothing illegal if subsequently he revises his opinion and calls for charge-sheet after receiving the protest petition of the complainant and re-examining all the papers in the light of that petition and the submission made by the lawyer for the complainant. Doubtless, in that case there was a judicial enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. which preceded the order of the Magistrate calling for charge-sheet. But it was pointed out that irrespective of whether a judicial enquiry was held or not, an order of the Magistrate accepting the final report of the Police may always be revised in the light of further materials that may come to light subsequently; or on further scrutiny of the relevant papers by the Magistrate after hearing the submissions made by the lawyer for the complainant. Doubtless, two courses are open to him In those circumstances. He may either proceed with the case as a complaint case and issue summo