ORDER Gyanendra Kumar, J. - This is an application in revision by four persons who are accused of offences Under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC for kidnapping, procreation and rape of an alleged minor girl named Kamla. 2. In this case the police submitted a final report u/s 169 Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the Magistrate was not satisfied with the final report and suo moto took cognizance of the case. All the offences were triable by a court of session or a Magistrate of the first class. However, in the instant case, the Magistrate started proceedings as an enquiry rather than as trial. The ticklish question which arose for consideration was whether in a case in which the police had submitted a final report but the Magistrate had himself taken cognizance of the offences, the procedure to he adopted would-be one prescribed by Section 207-A Code of Criminal Procedure or the one prescribed by Sections 208 and 209 Code of Criminal Procedure etc. 3. Section 207-A Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the procedure to be followed' in proceedings instituted on a police report, while the one prescribed by Section 208 Code of Criminal Procedure refers to proceedings instituted otherwise than on police report. There is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure covering a case in which the police had submitted a final report but the Magistrate had taken cognizance suo moto. In the instant case, the Magistrate adopted the procedure prescribed by Section 207-A Code of Criminal Procedure on the presumption that such a case would be deemed to have been instituted on police report. Even the case law is not quite clear on the point. There are conflicting decisions of various High Courts. 4. When the case came up before on 27-4-1967 Mr. C.S. Saran, appearing for the accused-Applicants, had stated that the Supreme Court has in a very recent case resolved the dispute, which he thought favoured his contention namely, that the procedure to be adopted in such a case would be the one which would be applicable to proceedings instituted otherwise than on police report. But he failed to produce a copy of the Supreme Court judgment. 5. For some reason, which is not quite understandable, the legislature has chosen to prescribe one procedure in a case instituted on police report aid another in other cases. But he failed to produce a copy of the Supreme Court judgment. 5. For some reason, which is not quite understandable, the legislature has chosen to prescribe one procedure in a case instituted on police report aid another in other cases. u/s 207-A Code of Criminal Procedure, when prosecution has commenced on a police report, the Magistrate is not bound to examine (sic) the prosecution witnesses nor take defence evidence. On the contrary, 208 Code of Criminal Procedure when a proceeding is instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused have also a right to produce their defence evidence. In this state of law and the case law, I think it is not necessary for me to give a finding in this particular case whether it would be governed by Section 207-A or Section 208 Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if it is governed by Section 207-A, there is a provision in Sub-clause (4) of the aforesaid section that the Magistrate shall proceed to take the evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged; and if the Magistrate is of opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice to take the evidence of any one or more of the other witnesses for the prosecution, he may take such evidence also. Sub-section (5) of the aforesaid section grants a right to the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. In the present case, PW 1 Kamla, the victim, has already been examined and cross-examined at length. 6. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it appears necessary, in the interest of justice, to record the testimony of all the witnesses of fact. I order accordingly. As and when the witnesses of fact are examined by the prosecution, they shall of course, be allowed to be cross-examined by the accused, as provided in Sub-section (5) of Section 207-A Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The orders passed by the courts below are modified accordingly. The case would now go back to the enquiring Magistrate, who shall proceed with the case in the manner indicated above. 8. The revision is disposed of accordingly.