This criminal revision under Rule 13 of the Khasi Siems-hips (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950, is directed against the order dated 16.6.83 passed by Shri D. K. Choudhury, Addi­tional Deputy Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin discharging the accused-opposite parties in Nongstoin P. S. Case No. 5(5)83 (GR No. 38/83). The relevant facts are that on 10.5.83 Shri Johori, Shri Dringly and Shri D. Giri of Village Mawpyllum lodged a written ejahar at Gomaghal Out Post under Nongstoin Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on that day at about 5.30 P. M. the accused-opposite parties U. Bakingstar and others of village Phlangdilion snatched away a sum-of Rs. 276.45 paise being the tolls collected at Mawpyllum Bazar under Langrin Syiemship which amount belonged to the complainants. Thereupon police registered Nongstoin P. S. Case No. 5(5) of 1983 under Section 395 I. P. C. and in course of investigation the accused-opposite parties were arrested and the allegedly looted amount was recovered from the accused-oppo­site party No. 1, U. Bakingstar. It appears that bail was granted to the accused-opposite parties finally on 31.5.83 by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nongstoin imposing certain conditions. The accused-opposite parties filed an application before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner for removal of those conditions and the said application was taken up for hearing on 16.6.83 in presence of the learned counsel for the opposite parties and the P.I.. The learned counsel for the accused-opposite parties submitted that the provision of Para 4 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution laid down the procedure of administration of justice in autonomous district and autonomous region and refe­rred to a decision of this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 76 of 1967 decided on 11th July, 1967, which was circula­ted by the Government vide letter No. L.J. 69/73/58 dated 30th January, 1981. In Criminal Revision No. 76/67 (U. Yur Rynjah and another vs. State and others) it was held that in every cri­minal case arising out of the charge sheet submitted by the police, if the person who lodges the information is a man belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, the dispute in fact is a dispute between the two Schedule Tribes people. If the mere fact that the State figures as a party were to be accepted as correct, no police prosecuted case can be tried by a Subordi­nate District Council Court. If the mere fact that the State figures as a party were to be accepted as correct, no police prosecuted case can be tried by a Subordi­nate District Council Court. If this were intended by the Cons­titution makers, they would have said so. On the other hand, a reading of paragraph 5(1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Cons­titution shows that the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code for offences punishable by the District Council Courts, when a notification by the Governor is issued, confe­rring these powers, such prosecutions are generally always by the police. This was based on the principle that the prosecu­tion whenever it is conducted by the State, it is conducted firstly on behalf of the aggrieved party, who is the complainant or the person lodging the ejahar with the police and in the interest of law and order and maintenance of discipline. In the aforesaid circular it was directed that under the Meghalaya Autonomnus District Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provision) Act (Assam Act XXII of 1957 as adopted by Megha­laya), the Deputy Commissioner and an Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner have no power to try any case which is exclusively triable by any Court constituted by the District Council under paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and that any such case which at any stage after the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant to him has taken cognizance of, transpires to be so triable shall have to be transferred to the competent court of the District Council immediately. Following the above direction the learned Additional Deputy Commissi­oner observed that in the circumstances the case was triable only by the District Council Court and that either the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant to him had no jurisdiction excep­ting taking cognizance of the offence; and that as soon as the cognizance of the offence is taken, the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant to him is to transfer the case to the competent court i.e. the Court constituted by the Governor under para­graph 5 of Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. It was further observed that before transferring the case the Court allowed all the accused persons to go on bail with certain conditions. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner went on observing that under Section 11 of the U. K. J. H. A. D. appointment and Succession of Chiefs & Headman Act, 1959, as amended. It was further observed that before transferring the case the Court allowed all the accused persons to go on bail with certain conditions. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner went on observing that under Section 11 of the U. K. J. H. A. D. appointment and Succession of Chiefs & Headman Act, 1959, as amended. Deputy Secretary (Elaka Admn) Khasi Hills District Council, Shillong vide his letter No. DC. XXVII/72/81-82/8 dated 29.7.82 informed all concerned that U. Doli Singh Syiemlieh was no longer the Syiem or the Administrator of Langrin Eleka since 25.10.80 when the Executive Committee had to temporarily take over the administration on account of his illness and had appo­inted the Administrative Officer who took over and ran the administration of the Eleka in accordance with the order dated 25.10.82 and since that time and thereafter with the resignation of U. Doli Singh Syiemlieh from the post of Syiem, the Execu­tive Committee appointed U. Bakingstar Syiemoing as the Acting Chief who has since functioned as such till date and the appo­intment had been confirmed by Notice No. DC. XXVII/Genl/72(81-82/6 dated 14.7.82. 2. This was material for the purpose of a case in the context of the alleged offence of having snatched away of Rs. 276.45 p. collected as tolls at Mawpyllum Bazar under Langrin Syiemship. The reason was that if the accused-opposite party No. 1 was the lawfully appointed Syiem of the Langrin Eleka he would be entitled to the amount of toll collected from the same Bazar and no offence would, therefore, be committed by snatching away the money from the complainants who were supporters of U. Doli Singh who had ceased to be the Syiem. Thus after the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner rightly came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case, which was triable by a competent Court of the District Council he should have refrained from passing any order on the case itself. Instead of doing that he proceeded to observe that in view of the appointment and confirmation made by the District Council appointing and confirming accused-opposite party No. 1, U. Bakingstar Syiemoing as the acting Chief, the ejahar lodged by Sri Johori, Shri Dringly and Sri D. Giri could not stand and he, therefore, discharged the accused persons and dis­posed of the case itself. He further observed that the Govern­ment, if so advised, might go to the Higher court on appeal. 3. Mr. A. Sarma, the learned Public Prosecutor, Meghalaya, submits, and I think rightly, that once the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner found that he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case he should have refrained from passing any order in the case and the only course open to him was to transfer the case to a court of competent jurisdiction appointed by the Dis­trict Council. It was not open to him to have observed that the ejahar filed did not stand far less to have discharged the accused persons and dispose of the case itself. This part of the order, it is submitted, is clearly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. S. C. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-opposite parties, submits that in view of the fact that the accused-opposite party No. 1. himself was the Syiem the complainants could not collect the tolls from the Bazar which admittedly belonged to Langrin Syiemship and there was no case against the accused-opposite party No. 1. Under such cir­cumstances, it is submitted, even if the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner committed any error it was a mere technical error and that in the interest of justice this Court should not interfere with the order in revision and, at any rate, the accused-opposite parties should not be further subjected to any criminal process. In this context Mr. Das submits that only the spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to Langrin Syiem-ship which is governed by the Khasi Syiemships (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950. Rule 13 of that order provides as follows : "13. The High Court or the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceedings of the Subordinate Criminal Courts for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such subor­dinate court and enhance, reduce, cancel or modify any sentence or finding passed by such Court or remand the case for retrial." Mr. Das submits that the scope of this provision is very wide encompassing within it the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Mr. Das submits that the scope of this provision is very wide encompassing within it the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Mr. Sarma, while not disputing this proposition, submits that this is not a case where the powers akin to those under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised inas­much as in this case no charge-sheet has yet been sub­mitted and the case is purely within the investigation stage. In the State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 SC 949 which has been relied upon by both Mr. Sarma and Mr. Das, it has been held that where the F.I.R. does not disclose the commi­ssion of a cognizable offence the High Court is justified in quashing the investigation in exercing a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has to be remembered that this petition has not been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it has not been filed impugning the proceeding itself. In Khacheru Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1982 S.C. 784 , all that the Magistrate had done was to issue a summon to respondent No. 2, Satyavir Singh. It was held that if eventually, the learned Magistrate come to the conclusion that no offence was made out against Satyavir Singh, it would be open to him to discharge or acquit him as the case might be. But it was difficult to appreciate why the order issuing summons should be quashed. Mr. Das submits relying on the above case that when the Magistrate had the power to discharge the accused persons and he had so discharged, this Court need not interfere with that order. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that no charge-sheet was submitted, I am of the view that having found correctly that learned Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to try the case it was not open to him while considering the application for removing the conditions of bail to have held that the F.I.R. did not stand or to have discharged the accused opposite parties. The impugned order to that extent must be, and is accordingly, set aside and quashed. The matter must to remain at the stage prior to passing of that part of the impugned order which is set aside as aforesaid. The impugned order to that extent must be, and is accordingly, set aside and quashed. The matter must to remain at the stage prior to passing of that part of the impugned order which is set aside as aforesaid. It would now be open for the investigating authority to proceed with the investigation according to law and after charge-sheet, if any, is submitted the competent court should try it in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It would equally be open to the accused opposite parties to chall­enge the validity of the investigation itself before it is completed or the case itself after submission of the charge sheet, if any in accordance with law. Be it made clear that this order shall in no way prejudice the merits of the case and the Court, if required, shall try the case being not in any way trammeled by the observations made hereinabove. 6. In the result this criminal revision is allowed as above and the Rule is to that extent made absolute. Send down the records to the Court from where these were received. On receipt of the records the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner will proceed with the case in accordance with law in light of the observations made hereinabove.