JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This reference has been made by the learned Additional District Magistrate (J.), Ghazipur, and arises out of the following circumstances. 2. One Virendra Pratap Singh lodged a first information report at police station Nandganj on February 27, 1965, alleging therein that Ram Surat Singh and other opposite parties to this reference, on the early morning of that date, took away 30 bundles of Bejhar crop belonging to Virendra Pratap Singh from his field. On this report an investigation was made by the police authorities of police station Nandganj and a case against Ram Surat Singh and others was registered under Sections 379/504/506 I.P.C. 3. After investigation the police officials submitted a final report before the learned Judicial Officer on April 9, 1965, but even before that date Virendra Pratap Singh suspected that the police investigation may not support his allegations made in the first information report and hence he moved a protest petition before the learned Magistrate requesting him that if the police submitted any final report that report should not be accepted. After the learned Magistrate received the final report from the police he took up the protest petition of Virendra Pratap Singh and after hearing him and the Assistant Public Prosecutor the learned Magistrate did not accept the final report submitted by the police and ordered the police to submit a chargesheet in the case. This order was passed by the learned Magistrate on May 18, 1965. Thereafter, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application praying that the order dated May 18, 1965 calling for a charge-sheet from the police passed by the learned Magistrate should be recalled as it was against law. On that application the learned Magistrate, on September 22, 1965, passed the following order: "The learned A.P.P. has moved an application for review in the matter of a protest petition moved by one Virendra Pratap Singh in a crime case No. 29 under Section 379 I.P.C. to the effect that the original report be accepted or in the alternative the accused be summoned. Heard the arguments and perused the legal position of the matter, I find that my order dated May 18, 1965 calling the charge-sheet under Section 379 I.P.C. stands hold good and there is nothing left open to be reviewed. This review application is hereby rejected. Heard the arguments and perused the legal position of the matter, I find that my order dated May 18, 1965 calling the charge-sheet under Section 379 I.P.C. stands hold good and there is nothing left open to be reviewed. This review application is hereby rejected. The A.P.P. is directed to comply with the order dated May 18, 1965." 4. Against the above order the State preferred a revision which was heard by the learned Additional District Magistrate (J.), Ghazipur, who, by his order dated April 14, 1966, has made the present reference and has recommended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate ordering the police to submit a chargesheet against Ram Surat Singh and others be set aside. 5. I have heard Sri Roop Kishore Srivastava, the learned brief-holder for the State, and Sri Shripat Narain Singh, appearing for Sri Virendra Pratap Singh Both the learned counsels have supported the reference. 6. There is no provision in the Cr. P.C. empowering the Magistrate to order the police to submit a charge-sheet in any case, although the Magistrate is not bound to accept a final report submitted by the police under Section 173, Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate is not satisfied with the final report submitted by the police he can summon the accused and put them to trial but he cannot direct the police to submit a charge-sheet. He can only take cognizance either under sub-section (b) of Section 190, Cr.P.C., or sub-section (c) of that section. It was held in Rama Shanker v. State of U.P., 1956 AWR 334 by a Division Bench of this Court as follows: "An investigating officer is required by Section 173 of the Code to submit a charge-sheet, but this does not render his act of submitting a charge-sheet a judicial act. A court has no judicial control over investigations and over the manner, or the circumstances, in which an investigating officer makes his report under Section 173. An investigating officer's act is wholly administrative." 7. By asking the police to submit a charge-sheet a Magistrate cannot be said to have summoned the accused under the provisions of Section 190, Cr.P.C. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate on May 18, 1965 and September 22, 1965, were thus clearly illegal. 8. An investigating officer's act is wholly administrative." 7. By asking the police to submit a charge-sheet a Magistrate cannot be said to have summoned the accused under the provisions of Section 190, Cr.P.C. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate on May 18, 1965 and September 22, 1965, were thus clearly illegal. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully going through the orders passed by the courts below I accept this reference and set aside the orders passed by the learned Magistrate on May 18, 1965 and September 22, 1965 ordering the police to submit a charge-sheet against Ram Surat Singh and others.