JUDGMENT CHAINANI C. J.-The petitioners are two police constables who were formerly attached to the Jaisingpur Outpost. On September 7, 1962, one Bhupal Anna Chougule was murdered. Two persons were prosecuted in connection with that offence, but they were acquitted. The allegation against the petitioners was that they had taken some illegal gratification and had tried to shield the culprits and that they had thereby committed offences under sections 193, 201, 20-1 and 217, Indian Penal Code. They were arrested and released on bail. These offences were investigated by the police, but after the acquittal of the accused, who were tried on the charge of murder the police came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to obtain a conviction against the petitioners. They, therefore, sent a report to the Judicial Magistrate concerned under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, and asked for a non• cognizable summary in respect of the offences alleged against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, however, granted c A" Summary. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed a revision application in the Sessions Court at Kolhapur. That was rejected. Thereafter they have filed the present revision application in this Court. 2. It appears that before the learned Magistrate passed orders on the report made to him under section 173, the petitioners had made an application to him and requested that they should be heard before orders were passed. In State v. Murlidhar (1), it has been held that an order passed by a Magistrate on a report under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, requesting that Summary" A", "B" or "C" be issued is in its very nature a judicial order and not an administrative order. Mr. Gole, the learned advocate for the petitioners, has therefore contend• ed that the Magistrate was bound to hear the petitioners before deciding as to which Summary he should grant. He has urged that a judicial order necessarily contemplates that there must be application of mind and that there can be proper application of mind only after the parties have been heard. There is no provision in the Code providing for classification of offences or for the issue of Summaries by the Magistrate to whom a report is made under section 173 of the Code. The classification is made and the Summaries are granted under Para. 219 in Vol. III of the Police Manual. There is no provision in the Code providing for classification of offences or for the issue of Summaries by the Magistrate to whom a report is made under section 173 of the Code. The classification is made and the Summaries are granted under Para. 219 in Vol. III of the Police Manual. Clause 3 of this paragraph states that a request should be made to the Magistrate to classify the case and to issue an appropriate Summary of his order, and the clause further provides that "A" Summary is to be issued when the complaint is true but undetected (where there is no clue whatsoever about the culprits or property or where the accused is known but there is no evidence to justify his being sent up to the Magistrate for trial), that "B" Summary is to be issued when the complaint is maliciously false, while "C" Summary is to be issued when the complaint is neither true nor false. These Summaries are asked for when the police do not propose to send a charge-sheet against the accused or when it is not proposed to prosecute him. A Magistrate has no doubt power to direct a prosecution, but if he decides not to do so, then he issues an appropriate summary. A summary is, therefore, issued only when it is not proposed to prosecute the accused. An order of the Magistrate granting one or the other summary does not, therefore, cause any prejudice to the accused. So far as he is concerned the proceeding under the Code commenced by the Police then comes to an end. Consequently it is not necessary to hear the accused for deciding which summary should be granted. There is also no provision either in the Code or in the Police Manual, which provides that the accused should be heard before the Magistrate decides as to which summary he should grant. I am, therefore, unable to accept Mr. Gales argument that the Magistrate was under an obligation to hear the petitioners before he decided to grant "A" Summary. 3. It has, however, been urged by Mr. Gole that the consequence of the grant of "A" Summary may be that departmental proceedings may be instituted against the petitioners. Such proceedings could have been instituted against the petitioners even if the petitioners had been prosecuted and acquitted or if the Magistrate had issued "C" Summary. 3. It has, however, been urged by Mr. Gole that the consequence of the grant of "A" Summary may be that departmental proceedings may be instituted against the petitioners. Such proceedings could have been instituted against the petitioners even if the petitioners had been prosecuted and acquitted or if the Magistrate had issued "C" Summary. The order made by the Magistrate granting "A" Summary is based on the evidence collected by the police during the course of the police investigation. Such an order cannot prejudice an accused person in any departmental proceeding which may be held against him, because the finding in the departmental proceeding must necessarily be based on the evidence led in the course of the departmental inquiry. The order of the Magistrate granting "A Summary made without hearing the petitioners cannot, therefore, prejudice the petitioners in any departmental inquiry which may be decided to be held against them. [His Lordship after dealing with a point not material to this report, concluded.] I, therefore, see no sufficient reason to interfere in this case. Rule discharged. Rule discharged.