JUDGMENT P.S. SAHAY, J. 1. This application on behalf of the informant for cancellation of bail is directed against an order of Sessions Judge, dated the 24th of May, 1976, granting bail to opposite party no. 2 and 3 in Barhiya P.S. Case No. 19 (11) 75 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be mentioned here that bail has been granted by the Sessions Judge, Monghyr, under the provisions of section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 2. Short facts are that the petitioner lodged a first information report stating that, on the 26th of November, 1975 opposite party nos. 2 and 3 along with six others who were named in the first information report, mercilessly assaulted the deceased Bilayat Singh on account of previous enmity. A case was registered and investigation was taken up by the police and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were apprehended in the case. It seems that, after the case was investigated by the police, an interim chargesheet was submitted on the 24th January 1976. The operative portion of the chargesheet reads as follows:– "In course of investigation and supervision, this case under sections 148/149/302/342 I.P.C. has been found to be true. Two of the accused persons mentioned in column no. 3 have already been arrested and the remaining accused persons are absconding. According to column no. 2, the S.P. has given instruction to submit interim charge sheet against the two accused mentioned in column no. 3. As a result thereof this chargesheet is submitted against the two accused mentioned in column no. 3. For trial under sections 147/148/149/ 302 I.P.C." On the 20th of May, 1975, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution that the chargesheet had already been submitted against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore cognizance should be taken against them. A rejoinder was also filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Lakhisarai, by his order dated 25.5.1976, held that the records of the case had been called for by the High Court and, therefore, it would not be proper to pass any order without looking into all the necessary papers and, thus, rejected the prosecution. 3. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Lakhisarai, by his order dated 25.5.1976, held that the records of the case had been called for by the High Court and, therefore, it would not be proper to pass any order without looking into all the necessary papers and, thus, rejected the prosecution. 3. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed an application for bail before the Sub-divisional Magistrate that no chargesheet had been submitted in this case and they were in custody for more than sixty days and therefore, they were entitled to bail under the provisions of section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was submitted before the learned Magistrate that investigation had not been completed and there was no provision for interim chargesheet in the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, they were entitled to bail. The learned Magistrate, however, held that the charge sheet had been submitted, though it had been wrongly termed as interim chargesheet and that it was a chargesheet for all practical purposes and therefore, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were not entitled to bail though they were in custody for more than sixty days. 4. Against the order aforesaid, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 moved the Sessions Judge, Monghyr, in which a prayer was reiterated by them that interim chargesheet was not warranted by law and therefore, they were entitled to bail as they have been in custody for more then 60 days and investigation had not been completed. In support of their contention, they relied on decision of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2139 of 1976 (Shiv Shankar Prasad Sao vs. State of Bihar, 1. 1976 BBCJ – N–11, disposed of on the 11th May, 1976). It was held by C.P. Sinha, J., that interim chargesheet is unwarranted by law and cannot defeat the provisions of section 167 (2) proviso (a) of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. This was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that interim chargesheet was a chargesheet for all practical purpose and, therefore, no bail should be granted to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. But the learned Sessions Judge, relying on the decision of the High Court, granted bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and directed that they should be released on bail of Rs. 2 and 3. But the learned Sessions Judge, relying on the decision of the High Court, granted bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and directed that they should be released on bail of Rs. 8,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below. 5. The petitioner, who was the informant in this case, has moved this Court for cancellation of bail of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. This case was admitted and notices were served on the State of Bihar and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The case was listed before Single Judge where a point of law was raised that even if the chargesheet had been submitted no cognizance had been taken in the case and therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand the accused persons beyond a total period of sixty days. In view of the importance of the point involved in the case, the learned Single Judge has referred it to a Division Bench and this is how this has come before us. 6. Mr. Indra Bhanu Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the chargesheet is a complete charge sheet so far opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are concerned and even if it is termed as interim chargesheet, in Jaw, it will be deemed to be a full fledged chargesheet and therefore, the Learned Sessions Judge has wrongly exercised his discretion under section 167 (2) proviso (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in granting bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Shiv Kumar Sinha has appeared for opposite party no. 2 and 3. Mr. Krishna Prakash Sinha has appeared for opposite Party no. 3 and they have submitted that investigation had not been completed in the case and therefore, the Sessions Judge had rightly exercised his discretion in granting bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 because there was no provision for interim chargesheet in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second submission raised on behalf of opposite party nos. 3 and they have submitted that investigation had not been completed in the case and therefore, the Sessions Judge had rightly exercised his discretion in granting bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 because there was no provision for interim chargesheet in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second submission raised on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is that, even if the chargesheet bad been submitted in this case, cognizance was taken and, therefore, the order of remand beyond the period of sixty days will be wholly illegal, and unwarranted by law and in that view of the matter also, the order of the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified. It has further been urged that there was no allegation that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had misused the privilege of bail and therefore, no ground for cancellation of bail has been made out in the case. Lastly, it has been submitted that the case was instituted on a police report and, therefore, the petitioner, who was the informant, a private party, has no locus standi to file this application which should be summarily dismissed. Mr. Lala Kailash Behari Prasad, who appeared on behalf of the State, has submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. 7. In view of the submissions made, whether cognizance had been taken or investigation was pending or not, the lower Court records were called for and it took some time and therefore, the judgment of the case was delayed. Before I go to the points raised by the parties, I would like to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Krishna Prakash Sinha that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this application. According to him, it was the State who was competent to file such application and since the State is not at all interested, the application is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Ram & other vs. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 911 and has relied on a head note "c" in which it has been stated that, in a case which has proceeded on a police report, a private party has no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of section 435 are very wide and the Sessions Judge even can take up the matter suo motu. No doubt, the terms of section 435 are very wide and the Sessions Judge even can take up the matter suo motu. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person, who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions in criminal matters, the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who had acted against the social interests of the community to book Mr. Indra Bhanu Singh has, on the other hand, relied on a decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 1346 of 1971 which has been disposed of on 26.2.1973 but this case does not help the petitioner in any way because the facts of that case are quite different from the facts of the present case. Mr. Indra Bhanu Singh has relied on a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Borah Singh vs. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1956 All 671, in which their lordships had laid down that it was the duty of the Court to cancel bail in proper circumstances under section 497, Sub-Clause (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No application is required on behalf of any party. If the matter is brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge by the complainant, it is open to the Sessions Judge to pass an order under Section 497 Sub-Clause (5). Therefore according to him somehow or the other, the matter was before us and therefore, the technical objection raised on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 should not be allowed to stand. 8. There is another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Partap vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 786, in which it has been laid down that the High Court can exercise powers suo motu and all that a person filing a revision petition under section 439. Criminal Procedure Code, does is to draw the court's attention to an illegal, improper or incorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate court. Criminal Procedure Code, does is to draw the court's attention to an illegal, improper or incorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate court. Such powers are not affected by the fact that the revision petition is filed by a private person and not by the Government. Therefore, when this matter has come to our notice, it should not be thrown out simply on the ground that the application has been tiled by the informant and not by the State. Moreover it is a case of general importance which will cover a number of cases, there being no decision on this point and, therefore, it is all the more necessary that it should be decided once for all. The objection raised on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is, therefore, rejected. 9. Now, I take up for consideration whether the chargesheet submitted, which has been termed as an interim chargesheet is a complete chargesheet or not. Before I do so, it is necessary to refer to some facts which have been brought in the counter–affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. In the said counter–affidavit, it has been stated the case was supervised by the D.S.P. and he after supervision, had given instructions to be followed up by the Investigating Officer. He further suggested that the interim chargesheet should be submitted against opposite party nos. 2 and 3. so that they may not avail of the benefit of section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and similar directions were given by the S.P. Monghyr, which have not been complied with by the Investigating Officer and in the meantime, chargesheet was submitted. It has also been brought to our notice that Indo Singh, uncle of opposite party no. 2 filed a petition before the Additional I.G. of Police Bihar, Patna, and at his intervention, the investigation was taken from the hands of the Investigating Officer and was made over to Shri H.N. Jha, Inspector, C.I.D. who later made over charge to Shri Bhola Prasad. Inspector of Police, C.I.D. Shri Bhola Prasad sent letter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Monghyr, on the 7th May, 1976, stating that he had taken up the investigation of the case and he had to follow up certain directions given by the superior officers. In the counter–affidavit it filed on behalf of the opposite party no. Inspector of Police, C.I.D. Shri Bhola Prasad sent letter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Monghyr, on the 7th May, 1976, stating that he had taken up the investigation of the case and he had to follow up certain directions given by the superior officers. In the counter–affidavit it filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 similar statements had been made that investigation was not complete and certain directions given by the superior officers had to be complied with and the interim chargesheet had been filed only with the sole purpose that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 may not be released on bail. Shri Indra Bhanu Singh has drawn our attention to section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and specially to sub-clause (2) & (1) and according to him all the requirements of the said sub-clause had been complied with in the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. He has also drawn our attention to sub-clause (8) of section 173 which is a new provision and gives power to the police officers to collect materials even after the chargesheet had been submitted. His con1entirn is that chargesheet had been submitted and further investigation, if any, which is being done, is under the provisions of sub clause (8) of section 173. Therefore, the chargesheet submitted is complete so far Opposite Party nos. 2 and 3 are concerned and in that view of the matter, the discretion has been wrongly exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tara Singh vs. State, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 441, in which it has been stated that after the investigation is complete as required under section 173 (1) of Chapter 14, the police should forward to the Magistrate a report in the prescribed form giving the names of the parties, the nature of the information and the persons acquainted with the case. Where, therefore, the first report made by the police to a magistrate, though called incomplete challan, contains all these particulars and a second report called a supplementary challan is filed subsequently, giving the names of certain witnesses who are merely formal witnesses, the first report is, in fact, a complete report as required by section 173 (1) (a) and it is not necessarily vitiated by the mere fact that a supplementary challan is subsequently filed. But, in this case, the supplementary challan was a formal thing and investigation had already been completed and final form had been submitted. But, in the instant case according to the police officers themselves, the investigation was still continuing and the chargesheet was submitted and a number of directions had been given by the superior officers which had to be followed up by the Investigating Officer. The facts of the case in the Supreme Court are quite different from that of the instant case. 10. In another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.R. Dalmia vs. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1821, it has been held that the chargesheet is hardly a complete or accurate thesis of the prosecution case. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 173 requires the Officer-in-charge of the Police station to forward to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on police report in the prescribed form stating the names of the parties, the nature of the information and the persons acquainted with the case. Nothing further need be said on the point. The contention is that the chargesheet, which was submitted in the case, was in the prescribed form and in which all the formalities had been complied with and, therefore though it is termed as interim chargesheet it was a complete chargesheet. But the difficulty in accepting his contention is that superior officers themselves had given direction for further investigation in the matter and, therefore, it cannot be said that the investigation had been completed. Mr. Krishna Prakash Sinha, Learned counsel for opposite party no. But the difficulty in accepting his contention is that superior officers themselves had given direction for further investigation in the matter and, therefore, it cannot be said that the investigation had been completed. Mr. Krishna Prakash Sinha, Learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H.N. Risbud & another vs. State of Delhi, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 196, in which it bas been held as follows:– Thus, under the Code investigation consists generally of the following steps (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial and (5) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-under Section 173. The scheme of the Code also shows that while it is permissible for an officer-in-charge of a police station to depute some subordinate officer to conduct some of these steps in the investigation, the responsibility for every one of these steps is that of the person in the situation of the officer in charge of the police station, it having been clearly provided in section 168 that when a subordinate officer makes an investigation he should report the result to the officer in charge of the police station. It is also clear that final step in the investigation, viz, the information of the opinion as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused on trial is to be that of the officer in charge of the police station. There is no provision permitting delegation thereof but only a provision entitling superior officers to supervise or participate under Section 551." His submissions that it is the Investigating officer who has to form his opinion and after completing all the formalities he has to submit final form in the case. There is no provision permitting delegation thereof but only a provision entitling superior officers to supervise or participate under Section 551." His submissions that it is the Investigating officer who has to form his opinion and after completing all the formalities he has to submit final form in the case. If he thinks that prima facie case has been made out, he will submit a chargesheet and if, according to him, no case is made out, he will submit final report. Therefore, in the instant case, the interim chargesheet was filed at the instance of Superintendent of Police and without the opinion of the investigating Officer which is necessary in such matters. 11. Another decision in the case of Bandi Kotayya vs. State and other, A.I.R. 1966 A.P. 377, has been relied upon in which it has been laid down that all reports under sections 173 are police report but all police reports need not be reports under section 173. That being the position, a preliminary chargesheet is, no doubt, a police report but the Magistrate holding enquiry under section 207 A cannot take cognizance of the offence mentioned in that report and proceed with the enquiry upon receipt of the report. He must wait for the report under section 173 forwarded to him by the police after completion of the investigation. In view of the decisions which have been cited above it is absolutely clear that it is the Investigating Officer who can submit final report in that case and that also after closing of the investigation. In my opinion, there is no provision for interim chargesheet and a chargesheet should be complete as required by law after all the formalities had been complied with Mr. In my opinion, there is no provision for interim chargesheet and a chargesheet should be complete as required by law after all the formalities had been complied with Mr. Sinha has drawn our attention to S. 167 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:– "167 (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty four hours fixed by section 57 and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate." He has also drawn our attention to section 173 and has urged that section 167 speaks of investigation and there is no mention of any charge sheet or final form and, if investigation is not completed, the accused persons after the expiry of sixty days will be entitled to bail as a matter of right under proviso 2 (a) to section 167. He has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Natbar Parida vs. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1465 and has submitted that everywhere the word "investigation" has been used and there is no mention about the charge sheet and has relied on a portion of the judgment wherein it has been held that it may not be possible to complete investigation within a period of sixty days and even on a serious and ghastly types of crime the accused will be entitled to be released on bail. Therefore the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is well-founded and must be accepted. The investigation is still continuing and it has not been completed and the Sessions Judge has rightly granted bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 ignoring the interim chargesheet which is unknown to law. Another interesting point of law has been raised by Mr. 2 and 3 is well-founded and must be accepted. The investigation is still continuing and it has not been completed and the Sessions Judge has rightly granted bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 ignoring the interim chargesheet which is unknown to law. Another interesting point of law has been raised by Mr. Krishna Prakash Sinha that, if the chargesheet has been submitted, no cognizance has been taken in the case and therefore, the order of remand beyond the period of sixty days will be wholly illegal. He has drawn-our attention to section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:– "309 (1) In every enquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. (2) If the court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn any enquiry or trial it may from time to time, for reasons to be recorded postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit for such time as it considers reasonable and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody. Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused persons to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time; Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them except for special reason to be recorded in writing. His submissions are that the power of remand has been given under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a total period of sixty days and after that investigation is not completed accused reasons will be entitled to bail and when investigation is completed, the Magistrate after taking cognizance can only remand the accused under the provisions of section 309, sub-clause (2), which has been quoted above. It has been vehemently argued that, even if the chargesheet had been submitted (the position which is not accepted by opposite party nos. It has been vehemently argued that, even if the chargesheet had been submitted (the position which is not accepted by opposite party nos. 2 and 3), no cognizance has been taken and therefore, the remand beyond a period of sixty days will be without jurisdiction. In order to verify whether cognizance has been taken records were called for and I have gone through the lower court records and I find from the order sheet dated 2.7.1976, 9.10.1976 and 20.11.1976 that the Magistrate has written that final form had not been received and 17.12.1976 was fixed in the case on the last date, i.e. 20.11.1976. Thus, the position is clear that no cognizance has been taken. In the case of Natbar Parida vs. State of Orissa (Supra), it has hen held that Section 309 (2) is attracted only after the cognizance of offence has been taken or the commencement of the trial has proceeded. It may be mentioned that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, under Section 344, power was given to the Magistrate to remand an accused to jail custody in cases where investigation and collection of evidence were going on the power was meant to be exercised, whenever, necessary, to collect further evidence. There is no such provision in the new Code of Criminal Procedure. There may be cases in which chargesheet is submitted but no cognizance is taken, for some reason or the other and therefore, remand of an accused person under section 309, sub-clause (2), will be wholly illegal and he may demand his release without furnishing any bond. This may lead to an awkward situation. No doubt, there is a lacuna and it is for the law makers to correct the same but we have to interpret the law as it is. 13. Since the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have succeeded on the points of law, it is not necessary to consider whether they have misused the privilege of bail in this case. Thus, on a careful consideration of the points raised in the case, I am of the opinion that there is no provision for interim chargesheet in the Criminal Procedure Code. Chargesheet can be submitted only after the investigation has been completed. Thus, on a careful consideration of the points raised in the case, I am of the opinion that there is no provision for interim chargesheet in the Criminal Procedure Code. Chargesheet can be submitted only after the investigation has been completed. Section 173 (8) also does not confer any special power on the Investigating Officer to submit a report under section 173 (2) (i) for a limited purpose and to continue the investigation because the very opening words of sub-section 2 (1) read as follows:– "(2) (1) As soon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the for m prescribed by the State Government, stating:– (a) The names of the parties; (b) The nature of the information; (c) The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) Whether any offence appears to have been committed and if so, by whom; (e) Whether the accused has been arrested; (f) Whether he has been released on his bond and if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) Whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. Therefore in my view, such reports can be filed only after completion of the investigation. Section 173 (8), which has been introduced in the new Code, gives power to the Investigating Officer to re-open investigation even after the investigation has been completed and final form, may be chargesheet or final submission of chargesheet or final report it may come to the knowledge of the investigating officer that some material evidence has been overlooked or some other persons who should have been in the category of the accused or witnesses had been left by mistake. It is only in this contingency that fresh report can be filed under section 173 (8). It may not be out of place to mention that it was the settled view under the old Code that investigation, once completed, can only be re-opened after the direction of the superior police officers under section 551 of the old Code which is equivalent to section 36 of the new Code. By virtue of this new provision, the officer-in-charge of police station has been given free hand to re-open investigation at his own instance even without any direction by the superior officers. By virtue of this new provision, the officer-in-charge of police station has been given free hand to re-open investigation at his own instance even without any direction by the superior officers. Therefore reading the sections by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that, under section 173 (2) (1) or 173 (8), chargesheet, interim or temporary, whatever it may be called, can be submitted even during the pendency of the investigation. There cannot be an interim chargesheet on one hand and simultaneous investigation of the case on the other. I further hold that the power of remand under section 167 (2) is for a total period of sixty days and if the investigation is not completed the accused persons will be entitled to bail. After the expiry of sixty days, the power of remand is given under section 309 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and can be exercised only after the cognizance is taken. Detention of a person beyond a period of sixty days, if no cognizance has been taken will be wholly illegal and unwarranted by the law. In the instant case, investigation has not been completed and the discretion has been rightly exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Admittedly, no cognizance has been taken and therefore, there could not have been remand after a period of sixty days by the Magistrate under section 309 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in that view of the matter also the sessions Judge, was justified. 14. Thus there is no merit in the application which is accordingly dismissed. I agree. Application dismissed.