JUDGMENT S. Ali Ahmad, J. - This is an application on behalf of the State of Bihar against the order dated 2.7.1979 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, wherein he ordered the case to be closed and to discharge the opposite-parties from the bail bond. 2. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, some facts may be mentioned which are as follows: The Additional District Magistrate; Ranchi, gave a report dated 7.6.1976 in writing to the officer-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi, wherein, inter alia it was said that from the report of the District Accounts Officer, (Opposite-party No.3) dated 19.3.1976, it appeared that 31 cheques amounting to Rs. 13,01,697.75 paise had been issued by opposite-party No. 1 during the period beginning from 15.3.1974 to 20.12.1975 in favour of the District Lottery Officer, Ranchi (Opposite-party No.2) drawn on different banks. It is further said that on receipt of the cheques, the District Lottery Officer, Ranchi (Opposite-party No.2) issued lottery tickets to opposite-party No.1 from time to time against the cheques in spite of the fact that his earlier cheques were not honoured by the banks concerned. This according to the Additional District Magistrate, indicated that the District Lottery Officer acted against financial rules and all cannon of propriety in collusion with opposite-party no. 1 and thus they put the State Government to a loss of Rs. 13,01,697.75 Paise. Thereafter in paragraph 3 of the report, the Additional District Magistrate mentioned as to how from time to time the District Lottery Officer gave incorrect report about the receipt of the sale proceeds of the tickets. Towards the end of this paragraph, it was said: "Thus it will appear that the total outstanding dues till, the 63rd draw as reported by the District Lottery Officer, Ranchi was only Rs. 1,91,670/- though in reality the amount was Rs. 13,01,698.75 as per report of the District Accounts Officer, Ranchi referred to above." After mentioning these facts, the Additional District Magistrate requested the officer-in-charge to investigate the matter against the Lottery Agent (opposite-party No.1), the District Lottery Officer (opposite-party No.2) and other persons involved in the matter. He also said that legal action be taken against the guilty persons under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He also said that legal action be taken against the guilty persons under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of this report, the Kotwali Police registered a case under Sections 420, 496, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation. Opposite-party No.2 and the District Accounts Officer (opposite party No. 3) were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8th June, 1976 and 9th June, 1976. They were subsequently after some time released on bail. Opposite-party No. 1 also (who was in custody in connection with another case) was remanded in this case on 2.9.1976. He also, like other two opposite-parties was released on bail after some time. The investigation thereafter merrily continued and these opposite-parties went on appearing on the dates fixed. 3. Since no report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by the Police, the Magistrate every time directed the Police to submit final form and adjourned the case for two or three weeks. This process continued, when on 16.5.1979 the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order to the following effect : "Final form has not been received. Write a letter to the Officer-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station to submit final form by 2.7.1979 failing which it will be presumed that there is no material for proceeding with the case." As usual, the investigating authorities took this order lightly and kept mum. The next date in the case was 2.7.1979. It does not appear from the order recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that anyone appeared on behalf of the prosecution. It, however, appears from the impugned order that neither the report in final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by the police nor any reply was sent by it. From this the Chief Judicial Magistrate inferred that no evidence has been collected by the police against the accused, persons although it had investigated the case for about four long years. Under these circumstances, he closed the case and discharged the opposite-parties from their bail bonds. 4. Mr. Government Pleader pressing this application has contended that the investigation of the case was withdrawn from the Kotwali Police Station and it was entrusted to the C.I.D. Officer. Under these circumstances, he closed the case and discharged the opposite-parties from their bail bonds. 4. Mr. Government Pleader pressing this application has contended that the investigation of the case was withdrawn from the Kotwali Police Station and it was entrusted to the C.I.D. Officer. This fact, according to him, was known to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and, therefore, he should have given the direction to submit the report in final form to the C.I.D. Officer and not to the Kotwali Police. He also said that there was a Senior District Prosecutor attached to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi to look after the interest of the State cases but he too was kept in dark as no intimation was given to him in this regard. I do not know why these statements have been made in this application. The case was registered as Kotwali Police case. As to who is investigating the case is a matter for the police. The court is not concerned as to whether it is being investigated by the police or the C.I.D. or by any other agency. It is for the prosecutor to be alert and attend the court on the date fixed and see as to what orders are passed. Then again, it was no business of the court to go and inform the Senior District Prosecutor attached to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi who was to look after the interest of the State cases. The petitioner says that this Senior District Prosecutor was kept in dark. As to what the petitioner means by saying that he was kept in dark is not clear, but it has been said that he was kept in dark as no intimation was given to the public prosecutor in this regard. This Senior District Prosecutor, according to the statement made in paragraph 11 of this petition was engaged to look after the interest of the State cases. It is not, said that the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed orders in camera or concealed it from the Senior District Prosecutor. Had this Senior District Prosecutor attended the court on the dates fixed then all that I can say is that he would not have been "kept in dark". It is not, said that the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed orders in camera or concealed it from the Senior District Prosecutor. Had this Senior District Prosecutor attended the court on the dates fixed then all that I can say is that he would not have been "kept in dark". Then again in paragraph 9 of the revisional application, it has been said that in the margin of the order sheet dated 16-5-1979 there is an endorsement as "issued 17-5-79" but no Despatch Register entry number has been mentioned nor there is any corresponding entry in the Peon Book of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17-5-1979 showing any such letter despatched to Kotwali Police Station, Ranchi or to Sadar Court Police Officer, Ranchi. Thereafter in paragraph 10, it has been said that the Kotwali Police Station Ranchi did never receive any copy of order dated 16-5-1979. This statement is on affidavit and has been sworn by one Rajendra Nath Sinha, Investigating Officer, C.I.D. The statements made in paragraphs 9 are 10 according to the affidavit are true to his information. The source of information has not been disclosed. Further any person having any experience of judicial proceeding in this part of the country knows it full, well that usually no despatch register entry number is mentioned in the order-sheet nor any reference of the corresponding entry of the peon book is mentioned in the order-sheet. Likewise, the statement that the Kotwali Police Station did never receive any copy of the order dated 16-5-1979 is highly irresponsible. I may mention here that the deponent conveniently has omitted to make any reference to the register maintained in the Police Station in which the order and letters received are entered. These statements that I have just referred to above; in my opinion, have been made purposely with a view to malign the court and as such strongly deprecate them. 5. Coming now to the impugned order. It is true that the time taken by the investigating agency was painfully long. It is also true that this long period of investigation caused harassment to the opposite-parties inasmuch as they had to appear in the court on the dates fixed. But there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribes the period by which the investigation must be completed and report in final form must be submitted. It is also true that this long period of investigation caused harassment to the opposite-parties inasmuch as they had to appear in the court on the dates fixed. But there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribes the period by which the investigation must be completed and report in final form must be submitted. The argument of Mr. Government Pleader that the Chief judicial Magistrate acted illegally in closing the case is quite correct. The police under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has power to investigate any cognizable case. Then Section 173 (1) of the Code says that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Therefore, all that we get is that the investigation should be completed without unnecessary delay. I do not wish to convey the idea that the investigation was unnecessarily delayed because that is an extraneous consideration at this stage. Even if it be assumed in favour of the opposite-parties that there was unnecessary delay in completing the investigation, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to drop the proceeding. 6. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad appearing on behalf of opposite-party - no. 1 conceded that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. But he said that justice has been done to the parties and, as such, this Court should not interfere as it will cause injustice to the accused which will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In that connection; learned counsel submitted that no offence, at all, has been made out in the written report and, therefore, the investigation itself was bad. According to him, opposite-party no. 1 had purchased the lottery tickets from opposite-party No.2. The consideration was paid by cheques which were dishonoured. Therefore, according to him, there was no entrustment of any property to opposite-party no. 1 nor he could be said to have cheated anyone merely because the cheques were dishonoured. The argument is fallacious. Learned counsel forgets that the allegation is that the District Lottery Officer, opposite-party No.2, was entrusted with the lottery tickets, who, in conspiracy with opposite-party no. 1 and others, committed breach of trust. Likewise, the case of cheating is also, in my opinion, made out. Opposite-party No.1, along with other accused persons deceived the State Government to the tune of rupees thirteen lacs and odd. There is, therefore, no substance in this argument. 7. 1 and others, committed breach of trust. Likewise, the case of cheating is also, in my opinion, made out. Opposite-party No.1, along with other accused persons deceived the State Government to the tune of rupees thirteen lacs and odd. There is, therefore, no substance in this argument. 7. Learned counsel submitted that on account of unusually long delay in investigation, the case should not be allowed to proceed any further. According to him, the delay in submission of final form amounted to mala fide and on that account investigation could be quashed. I do not think this point is open to learned counsel in this application. May be that in some cases investigation is quashed on account of unusual delay but on that account it cannot be said that delay per se in submission of final form amounts to mala fide. Besides, the power to quash investigation cannot be exercised under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This power, the High Court in proper cases may exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the argument of Mr. Prasad. 8. Mr. P. S. Dayal, appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 contended that by the impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not put an end to the investigation. All that he did was to discharge the accused persons from the bail bond as, they were being harassed on account of the long delay. I do not think, learned counsel is correct. The order is quite plain. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not only discharge the accused persona from the bail bond but also closed the case which, I have said earlier, he could not. 9. A perusal of the order-sheet maintained by the Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that he went on reminding the investigating agency to expedite the submission of final form as unusual delay was causing harassment to the accused persons. I appreciate his anxiety but at the same time for reasons which I have mentioned earlier, it is not possible to uphold the impugned order. It is accordingly set aside and the application is allowed with a direction that the learned Magistrate may enlarge the opposite-parties on their furnishing bail and also dispense with their personal attendance until the submission of charge-sheet. Application allowed.