M. MURTAZA HUSAIN, J. This application under Section 482 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by six persons viz. Bali Ram alias Balli, Sampat, Gama, Munna, Rampat and Bal Kishan for setting aside the order dated 16-2-1976 passed by the Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. Through that order the learned Magistrate has committed the applicants to the Court of Session to face their trial for offences of rioting and murder. 2 On 1-12-1975 one Lalta gave information to the Officer-in-charge Police Station Rohania in the district of Varanasi that on 30-11-1975 at 8 A. M. the six applicants had committed cognizable offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 Indian Penal Code. That information was reduced to writing and a case was registered against the applicant. The Officer-in Charge entrusted investigation of that case to the Second Officer who was subordinate to him. That officer duly investigated the case and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence and also reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the applicants to the Magistrate who was competent to take cognizance of offences complained of. He, therefore, charge-sheeted the applicant, but instead of reporting the result of investigation to the Officer-in charge, he submitted charge-sheet before the Circle Officer of his Police Station, who is an officer of the grade of Deputy Superintendent of Po ice and, thus superior in rank to the Officer-in-Charge. The Circle Officer, in his turn, forwarded the aforesaid charge-sheet to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, who took cognizance of the offences disclosed by it. 3. The applicants challenged the validity of the charge sheet before the aforesaid Magistrate on two grounds. It was, firstly, contended that the charge-sheet was invalid because the investigating officer had illegally submitted it to the Circle Officer without reporting the result of investigation to the Officer, in Charge As a corollary of that contention it was also urged that the Magistrate concern d could not take cognizance on the basis of that illegal charge-sheet. Secondly, it was pleaded that the charge-sheet submitted against the applicants was defective because all the documents or relevant extracts thereof, on which the prosecution proposed to rely and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were not forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the charge-sheet. Secondly, it was pleaded that the charge-sheet submitted against the applicants was defective because all the documents or relevant extracts thereof, on which the prosecution proposed to rely and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were not forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the charge-sheet. The Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom the case was pending, repelled those contentions and committed the applicants to the Court of Session as the offences alleged to have been committed by them were triable by that Court. 4. The applicants went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi wherein they challenged the validity of the commitment order on the same grounds on which legality of the charge-sheet and competence of the committing court to take cognizance were questioned in that court. The learned Sessions Judge found no force in the contentions of the applicants and dismissed their revision. They have now come to this Court with the present application. 5. It has not been disputed on behalf of the applicants that after receiving information under Section 154 Cr. P. C. relating to commission of cognizable offences by the applicants, the Officer-in-charge of police station Rohania could, under Section 157 (1) Cr. P. C, depute the Second Officer to investigate the case. The present case was thus investigated by a police officer who was competent to investigate it. 6. Relying upon the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court In H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi. ( AIR 1955 SC 196 .) the learned counsel for the applicants urged that the scheme of investigation contained in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that while it is permissible for an Officer-in-Charge of a police station to depute some subordinate officer to conduct some of the steps in investigation, the responsibility for every one of those steps in that of the person in the situation of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. It was added that because the subordinate officer, who investigated the present case, submitted charge sheet to the Circle Officer at his own initiative and completely ignoring the Officer-in Charge of the police station, so the charge-sheet submitted by him was illegal. 7. Section 168 Cr. It was added that because the subordinate officer, who investigated the present case, submitted charge sheet to the Circle Officer at his own initiative and completely ignoring the Officer-in Charge of the police station, so the charge-sheet submitted by him was illegal. 7. Section 168 Cr. P. C, undoubtedly, lays down that when a subordinate police officer has made any investigation under Chapter XII, he shall report the result of such investigation to the Officer-in Charge of the police station Section 170 Cr. P. C. also empowers the Officer-in-Charge of police station to forward the accused to the Magistrate concerned if it appears to him that there was sufficient evidence or reasonable ground for the same. Section 173 (2)Cr. P. C. which deals with submission oi charge-sheet, also confers that power upon the Officer-in-Charge of police station and not upon the subordinate officer who had investi gated the case. Section 173 (3) Cr. P. C. lays down that where a superior officer of police has been appointed under Section 158 Cr. P. C. the report contemplated by Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. shall be submitted through him. These provisions read together leave no room for doubt that the subordinate police officer, who investigated the present case, ought to have reported the result of investigation to the Officer-in-Charge, who, if necessary could forward the applicants to the Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the report contemplated by Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. which report had to be submitted through the Circle Officer. The investigating officer obviously committed an error by directly submitting the charge-sheet to the Circle Officer without reporting the result of investigation to the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. The question which, however, arises is whether or not the aforesaid error committed by the investigating officer vitiated the cognizance taken, commitment proceedings held, and, ultimate commitment order passed by the In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate. 8. In the case of H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, ( AIR 1955 SC 196 .) already referred to above, it has been held that submission of charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr. P. C. is the final stage of investigation proceedings. It has been further laid down in that authority that a defect or illegality in investigation, howsoever serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. P. C. is the final stage of investigation proceedings. It has been further laid down in that authority that a defect or illegality in investigation, howsoever serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. In AC Sharma v. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1973 SC 913 .), the Supreme Court again observed that any irregularity or even illegality committed in the course of investigation does not, by itself, affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise competent court, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. Section 36 Cr. P. C. (new), which corresponds to Section 515 Cr. P. C. (old), lays down that police officers superior in rank to an Officer-in-Charge of a police station may exercise the same powers throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. Thus, the Circle Officer, before whom charge-sheet of this case was submitted by the investigating officer, possessed all the powers of Officer-in-Charge of Rohania police station while handling that charge-sheet. When he agreed with the opinion of the investigating officer about the result of investigation and forwarded the charge-sheet to the Magistrate, who was undisputedly competent to take cognizance, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the applicants or any miscarriage of justice has taken place. 9. It is also noteworthy that under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. a magistrate can take cognizance of an offence upon a police report disclosing facts relating to that offence. The term "police report" has been defined by Section 2 (r) of Cr. P. C. is a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173. The Supreme Court has held in Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1965 SC 1185 .), that the words "police report" occurring in Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. include "any" report by a police officer whether falling under Section 173 Cr. P. C. or not. The charge-sheet submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the present case may, strictly speaking, not be said to be a report as contemplated by Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. include "any" report by a police officer whether falling under Section 173 Cr. P. C. or not. The charge-sheet submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the present case may, strictly speaking, not be said to be a report as contemplated by Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. because it was the report submitted by a subordinate officer to the Circle Officer and not by the Officer-in-Charge, but all the same it is a report of facts constituting offences of rioting and murder submitted before a competent Magistrate by a police officer. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had every jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. on the basis of that report. Cognizance having been legally and properly taken by him, any defect in investigation of the case or submission of charge-sheet cannot invalidate the proceedings held or commitment order ultimately passed by the learned Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate. 10. The contention of the applicants to the effect that documents and statements referred to in Section 173 (5) Cr. P. C. were not forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the charge-sheet has also no force because it is clear from the order dated 16-2-1976 passed by the incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate that the case diary prepared by the investigating officer was put up before him and he had perused it The case diary contained all the documents and statements contemplated by Section 173 (5) Cr. P. C. 11. To sum up my observations above, I hold that the investigation officer did commit mistake by not reporting the result of the investigation to the Officer-in-Charge and directly submitting the charge-sheet to the Circle Officer, but the charge-sheet ultimately submitted to the court cannot stand invalidated on that account, because the Circle Officer possessed powers of the Officer-in-Charge with respect to the investigation held and the charge-sheet submitted to him. Any illegality or irregularity committed by the investigating officer during investigation could possibly not invalidate that charge-sheet. In any case, the charge-sheet having been submitted before a competent Magistrate, he could take cognizance of the offences disclosed by it under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. even if the said charge-sheet was not a proper report as contemplated by Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. on account of having not been submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. P. C. even if the said charge-sheet was not a proper report as contemplated by Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. on account of having not been submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. The In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate having, in fact, taken cognizance of the offences disclosed by it, the commitment proceedings held and the commitment order passed by him are absolutely legal and proper. 12. This application has consequently no force and is dismissed. The stay order passed earlier stands vacated. The record of the case shall be sent down to the Sessions Judge, Varanasi immediately so that the trial of the case, which was held up on account of this application, is concluded as early as possible, Application dismissed. .