ORDER The above S. Rs. have been preferred by P.W. 1, to be admitted as appeal under S.417 (8), Criminal P.C., against the Judgement of acquittal in C. C. 1992 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul. The office felt a doubt whether those S. Rs. could be admitted as appeal. Hence, they are posted before me for orders. 2. The learned counsel, Sri Santhanam, who filed these S. Rs. submitted that the report filed by the police officer on a direction given by the Magistrate after taking cognisance of the private complaint filed under S.190(1), Criminal P.C., must be deemed to be a report under S.202, Criminal P.C. and that, therefore, the acquittal of the respondent must be deemed to be on the private complaint filed by the complainant and hence the provisions under S.417(3), Criminal P.C., alone will apply and that these S. Rs. should be admitted as appeal. 3. It is necessary to note briefly as to what happened in the case before the trial court, as seen from the records. P.W. 1 filed a private complaint against the respondents under S.379, I.P.C., before the Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul. The Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul. immediately examined P.W. 1, the complainant on oath under S. 200, Criminal P.C. and thereafter, he referred the complaint to the police for investigation. The police took up investigation under S. 156(3), Criminal P.C. and submitted a report under S. 173, Criminal P.C. Process was issued to the respondents after the report was submitted by the police and the case proceeded on the police report and the copies of the statements of witnesses and other records were furnished to the respondents under S. 173(4), Criminal P.C., They were ultimately acquitted. 4. Now the point is whether the acquittal was on a private complaint instituted by P.W. 1 or on the police report purported to have been submitted under S. 173, Criminal P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision is Jamima Sing v. Bhadai Shah, 1964 M. L. J. Cri. 526 : ( AIR 1964 SC 1541 ). The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision is Jamima Sing v. Bhadai Shah, 1964 M. L. J. Cri. 526 : ( AIR 1964 SC 1541 ). The Supreme Court held, that if once the Magistrate took cognisance of the case on a private complaint, if he subsequently directs the police to investigate, such an investigation must be deemed to be only under S. 202, Criminal P.C. and not under S. 156(3), Criminal P.C. and the report submitted by the police on such investigation can not be deemed to be a report under S. 173, Criminal P.C. The Supreme Court further held that if the Magistrate after receiving the complaint, makes up his mind to examine the complainant on oath under S.200, Criminal P.C., and examines the complainant, he must be deemed to have taken cognisance of the complaint. It is made clear in that decision that after taking the sworn statement of the complainant under S. 200, Criminal P.C., the direction by the Magistrate is only under S. 202, Criminal P.C., and not under S. 156(3), Criminal P.C. 6. In this case, the records show that the Magistrate after receiving the complaint examined the complainant on oath under S. 200, Criminal P.C. Therefore he had taken cognisance of the case under S. 190(1), Criminal P.C. on the private complaint filed by the complainant. The report submitted by the police on a direction by the Magistrate is a report under S. 202, Criminal P.C. It must, therefore, be deemed that the acquittal of the respondents was on the institution of private complaint and not on the police report. I am, therefore, of the view that these S. Rs. must be admitted as appeal. Ordered accordingly. 7. The assistance rendered to court by Messrs. G. Gopalaswami and C.K. Venkatanarasimham, advocates, as amicus curiae is recorded.