( 1 ) THIS is an application for quashing the proceedings pending against the applicant in the court of a first class Magistrate or transferring the proceedings to another district. The proceedings are under Section 406, I. P. C. , commenced on a report of the police. The case against him is that he embezzled a large sum of money which was entrusted to him for being carried from one place to another. A Panchayat Raj inspector made a report against the applicant on 8-7-1954 on the following allegations :

( 2 ) THE Inspector encashed a cheque for the sum of Rs. 5,746/14/- at Ghazipur in the presence of the applicant who is a businessman. The Inspector was afraid of carrying such a large sum of money from Ghazipur to Dildarnagar where his headquarters are. The applicant offered to carry the money, which was kept in a purse, from Ghazipur to Tarighat across the Ganges. The applicant and the Inspector separated. When some time later the Inspector met the applicant at tarighat and asked for the money, the applicant told him that he had already returned it to him. Actually the money had not been returned.

( 3 ) THE police investigated into the matter, raided the applicants shop and recovered Rs. 1016/-, found the applicant absent and took proceedings against him under Sections 87 and 88, Cr. P. C. , and arrested his brother. The applicant surrendered himself in court on the following day and pleaded alibi during the investigation.

( 4 ) IT is alleged by the applicant that the investigating officer at first submitted a final report as the result of the investigation but later on he submitted a charge-sheet against him in accordance with a direction given to him by the District Magistrate while inspecting the police station. The magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the charge-sheet submitted by the police and the applicant is being tried. Departmental proceedings were taken against the Inspector also for losing the money which belonged to the Panchayat Raj Department. The Inspector deposited the whole amount with the district Panchayat Officer. But these facts do not affect the applicants guilt, if any.

( 5 ) IT is stated in the charge-sheet that on investigation the report made by the Inspector was found to be true and that consequently the offence of Section 406, I. P. C. , was made out. That the allegations made in the report make out an offence under Section 406, I. P. C. , admits of no doubt. All the ingredients of the offence are alleged and if the report is true, the applicant is guilty. The police have found the report to be true after investigation and it is not open to any court to say at this stage that there is no truth in the report. Whether there is any truth in it or not will be seen when the trial is concluded. Before the trial is concluded no finding on this point can be given and the proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that the applicant has committed no offence. This is not the stage for considering the alibi evidence of the applicant; he should produce it when he is called upon to defend himself at the trial.

( 6 ) NOW I come to the most important question whether any illegality was committed by the magistrates taking cognizance of the offence against the applicant on a charge-sheet submitted to him by the investigating officer under administrative directions of the District Magistrate after he had once submitted a final report. The investigation was done by the investigating officer under Section 156, Criminal P. C. If upon investigation an investigating officer finds that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify prosecution of the accused, he is required by Section 169 of the Code to release him from custody. If, on the other hand, he finds that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion, he is required by Section 170 to forward him under custody to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over him. Section 173 requires the investigating o