Supplementary charge-sheets cannot be submitted once a Magistrate has taken cognizance; previous proceedings cannot be annulled without legal basis.

1. The petitioner in criminal revision case No. 893 of 1965 obtained the present rule against the order of the learned Magistrate virtually scrapping the proceedings gone through by him in an inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directing a de novo inquiry. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 925 of 1965 obtained the rule against the order of the same Magistrate summoning him on a supplementary charge - sheet filed by the investigating officer for an alleged offence under S.120B / 420 of the Indian Penal Code for an inquiry into the offence jointly with the other accused persons named in the original charge - sheet.

2. On a complaint filed by one Bindu Bhusan Bhattacharjee, the police submitted a charge - sheet against the petitioner in case No. 893 of 1965 and one Sudhir Kumar Chatterjee. In the charge - sheet, the petitioner in the other case and one Sk. Alimuddin Ahmed were mentioned as witnesses along with others. These two persons had been examined by the investigating officer under S.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in course of the investigation of the case and their statements were filed in Court along with other papers under S.173 of the Code and copies of their statements were also made available to the accused persons.

3. The learned Magistrate started an inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code against the two accused. In course of that inquiry, the de facto complainant in the case applied to the learned Magistrate on three different occasions for issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioner in case no. 925 of 1965 and Sk. Alimuddin alleging that there was a prima facie case against them under S.120B / 420 and 461/471 of the Indian Penal Code. All these three petitions were rejected by the learned Magistrate.

4. On May 20, 1965, the police submitted an amended challan against those very persons with a prayer for summoning them on the aforesaid two charges. The learned Magistrate accepted the amended challan and made an order virtually scrapping the evidence already recorded by him and directing a de novo inquiry against all the four accused persons including the two petitioners before me. It is the propriety of this order of the learned Magistrate which is the subject - matter of these two rules.
Mr. Dutta appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 893 of 1965 has raised two legal objections to the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate and it was contended that the procedure now sought to be followed as a result of the impugned order is one unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure and deserved to be struck down.

5. The contentions raised by Mr. Dutta raise the following two points : -
1. Whether a supplementary charge - sheet submitted by the police after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence has any legal effect. Whether the submission of such supplementary charge - sheet on the basis of further investigation after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence on the original charge - sheet involves double cognizance of the same offence by the Magistrate and by the police simultaneously and, if so, whether this is permissible in law, and
2. Whether after an inquiry or a trial has been proceeded with by a Magistrate, the proceeding already gone through can be scrapped and a de novo trial ordered by the Magistrate in view of a supplementary charge - sheet that is filed as a result of further investigation. If a de novo trial or inquiry is permissible, what would happen to the evidence that has already been recorded?

6. Mr. Talukdar appearing