Judgment The two petitioners were placed on trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Court, Sealdah to answer a charge under Section 14 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946. According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners were arrested on October 15, 1976 from Chatubabu Lane, Calcutta as they were Bangladesh Nationals and came over to India without any valid document and were remaining in India without any authority. A first information report was drawn up by Sri G.P. Chakraborty, Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Calcutta and on the basis thereof a case was registered by the Entally Police Station. Under orders of the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station Sri Chakraborty took up the investigation and submitted charge sheet through the Officer-in-Charge of Entally Police Station. 2. After the charge was framed ag4inst them and a witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate praying for quashing of the proceeding on the ground that the investigation was conducted by an Officer who himself was the complainant and as such the entire proceeding was bad in law. The learned Magistrate accepted the contention of the petitioners, relying upon a judgment of this Court, and quashed the proceeding by his order dated March, 29, 1978. Against the said order the opposite party the State of West Bengal, moved an application in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, 24- Parganas and by an order dated August 25, 1978 the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order and directed that the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The petitioners in this Rule have challenged the above order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. The point that was successfully agitated by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate has again been raised in Support of this Rule and it has been contended that the investigation by an officer who himself is the complainant is violative of all principles of natural Justice and fairplay and the Court cannot take cognizance on a charge sheet submitted pursuant to such investigation. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rasiklal Bhansali v. State, reported in 79 CWN 107. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rasiklal Bhansali v. State, reported in 79 CWN 107. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 15 of the said judgment wherein it has been held ;- “Investigation should not ordinarily be undertaken by an officer who is the complainant. This is not in consonance with fairplay and is against the principles of natural justice. Where the prosecution is the person entrusted with the collection of evidence, he will certainly proceed with a biased mind and this may prejudice the accused persons against whom charge-sheet is ultimately submitted." 4. Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that in view of the above decision the Charge-sheet submitted in the instant case is violative of the principals of natural justice and as such the entire investigation and the proceeding started in Court on the basis thereof is a nullity. I am, however, unable to accept this contention Mr. Bhattacharjee. 5. The decision nowhere lays down an abstract proposition of law that when an investigation is taken up by a person who lodges the complaint the entire proceeding' is bad in law or a nullity. The decision, inter alia, lays down that the investigation should not ordinarily be undertaken by the Officer who is the complainant as it may prejudice the accused persons against whom charge-sheet is ultimately submitted. In fact, though in the case before their Lordships the investigation was also taken up by the complaint, the Court held, in Paragraph 17 of the judgment that the cognizance taken on a charge-sheet submitted on the basis of an illegal investigation does not of course make the cognizance null and void nor can the charge-sheet submitted against the accused petitioner and others pursuant thereto be deemed to be without jurisdiction. Their Lordships, however, on the facts of the case presented before them felt that justice demanded that the proceeding should be struck down. In that decision their Lordships referred to the case of H.N. Rishband v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 191 ; wherein it was held that it was not possible to say that cognizance on an invalid police report was prohibited and was therefore a nullity. In that decision their Lordships referred to the case of H.N. Rishband v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 191 ; wherein it was held that it was not possible to say that cognizance on an invalid police report was prohibited and was therefore a nullity. It was further held that such an invalid report may still fall either under clause (a) or (b) of S.190(1) and in any case cognizance so taken was only in the nature of an error in a proceeding antecedent to the trial and to such a situation S.537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding provision S. 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) was attracted. 6. In the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1976 SC page 985, the Supreme Court observed that when an investigation is taken up by the person who is the complainant himself an infirmity IS bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case and on the facts of the it particular case held, that the evidence of the complainant was unworthy of credit but it never laid down that the entire investigation or the charge-sheet submitted on such investigation was a nullity. The principles deducible from the above cases therefore are:- (a) that a proceeding instituted on charge-sheet submitted on the basis of an investigation conducted by an officer who himself is the complainant is not violative at any mandatory provisions of law nor is the same a nullity; (b) that an officer who is the complainant should not however ordinarily take up investigation of a case instituted upon his complaint as it may prejudice the accused persons against whom charge-sheet is untimately submitted; (c) whether prejudice has been caused or not or whether the credibility of the prosecution case has been affected will always be a quest on of fact and as such will depend upon the facts of the particular case 7. In the instant Case the accused persons were arrested by the officer Concerned for being foreigners who failed to produce any document in support of their entry and stay in India. In the instant Case the accused persons were arrested by the officer Concerned for being foreigners who failed to produce any document in support of their entry and stay in India. Considering the nature of the allegation and of the proof required to substantiate the case of the prosecution there was no scope for detailed investigation and therefore it cannot be said that the investigation by the complainant has caused or can cause any prejudice to the accused. 8. I, therefore uphold the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas and discharge the Rule. Rule discharged.