K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jharsuguda, framing charge against them under S. 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'i. P. C. ' ). ( 2 ) A few facts may be stated in brief. On the basis of an F. I. R. lodged by the Divisional Manager, Kendu Leaves, Jharsuguda, of the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. , G. R. Case No. 773 of 1980 under S. 408, I. P. C. was initiated against one Binod Kumar Rathor. After investigation, final report was submitted on 18-6-1983 on the ground that there was insufficient evidence against the accused. The informant, however, filed a protest petition. On 22-5-1983 the case diary was called from the Investigating Officer. On 30-7-1983 report was called from him. Till 5-4-1984 neither the case diary nor the report was received. In consideration of the facts stated in the protest petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed further investigation. Even after further investigation a supplementary final report was received stating that there was insufficient evidence against the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate did not accept this final report either and again called for the case diary from the Investigating Officer. On 1-2-1986 he passed an order directing the informant to produce relevant documents and returned the case diary to the Investigating Officer. Ultimately on 2-1-1987 a charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioners and not the original accused Binod Kumar Rathor. In consideration of the charge-sheet and other police papers, the learned Judicial Magistrate learned charge against the petitioners on 17-7-1987 for an offence under S. 409, I. P. C. for having misappropriated a sum of Rs. 46,696/ -. ( 3 ) MR. H. S. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, challenged the impugned order mainly on two grounds. First, the learned Judicial Magistrate had no power to direct the police to submit charge-sheet and second, the petitioners have been put to harassment for nearly seven years without trial which amounts to miscarriage of justice violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Mr. D. P. Sahoo, the learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate did not direct the police for submission of charge-sheet, but directed for further investigation by implication by order dt. Mr. D. P. Sahoo, the learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate did not direct the police for submission of charge-sheet, but directed for further investigation by implication by order dt. 1-2-1986 and since the petitioners came into the picture only in the year 1987 they have no been put into harassment and there has not been a miscarriage of justice. ( 4 ) IT was held in AIR 1968 SC 117 , Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra that there is no power, expressly or impliedly conferred, under the Criminal P. C. (for short, 'the Code'), on a Magistrate to call upon the police to submit a charge-sheet, when they have sent a final report that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial. The functions of the Magistracy and the police are entirely different and though the Magistrate may or may not accept the report and take suitable action, according to law, he cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police by compelling them to change their opinion, so his to accord with his view. The learned counsel did not point out any order by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, directed the police to submit charge-sheet. The order dt. 1-2-1986 by which he directed the informant to produce relevant documents and returned the case diary to the Investigating Officer for submission of a report cannot he construed as such a direction. On the other hand, by passing this order the real intention of the learned Judicial Magistrate was to direct further investigation which he was authorised to do according to law. In this connection, I would refer to a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 1980 Pat 126 , Jailok Thakur v. State of Bihar, where it was held that it is well-settled that cognisance is taken of an offence and not offenders. Once cognisance is taken by a Magistrate under S. 190 of the Code it is open to him to issue summons to the accused person or to postpone the issuance of processes and inquire the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by another person. Once cognisance is taken by a Magistrate under S. 190 of the Code it is open to him to issue summons to the accused person or to postpone the issuance of processes and inquire the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by another person. After further investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners because a prima facie case was found against them on the basis of on audit report to the effect that petitioner K. C. Behera misappropriated Rs. 4,866/- petitioners R. K. Babu and P. K. Panda jointly misappropriated Rs. 27,347/- and petitioner R. K. Babu alone misappropriated Rs. 14,549. 65 paise, in total Rs. 46. 762. 65 P. I am, therefore, unable to accept the first contention of Mr. Misra and hold that the under of framing charge against the petitioners cannot be assailed as being not in accordance with law. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the audit report, the period of audit was from 19-9-1977 to 11-10-1977 and from 3-11-1977 to 25-11-1977. After the audit it was discovered that the petitioners were responsible for misappropriation of Rs. 46,762. 65 paise belonging to the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. The case was started in the later part of the year 1980 against one Binod Kumar Rathor against whom obviously charge-sheet was neither submitted nor was charge framed. At that time the petitioners were not in the picture at all. Only after further investigation was made on persistence by the learned Judicial Magistrate that it came to light that there were prima facie materials that the petitioners committed misappropriation of a huge amount. So charge-sheet was submitted against them on 2-1-1987 and only thereafter process was issued against the petitioners. So it is not correct to say that the petitioners are being harassed for at put seven years. I do not, therefore, find any justification to apply the principle laid down by this Court in (1985) 1 Orissa LR 558, Jogendra Mahanta v. State of Orissa; (1986) 1 Orissa LR 350; Balaram Swain v. State of Orissa and (1987) 1 Orissa LR 119, K. Achuta Rao v. State of Orissa to the effect that commencement of trial after long lapse of time amounts to miscarriage of justice warranting interference under S. 482 of the Code. On the other hand, if a grave offence of misappropriation of a heavy public amount goes unnoticed and unpunished because the police did not properly investigate into the case at earlier stages, it shall be a case of miscarriage of justice. The second contention of the learned counsel is also untenable. I would, however, administer a caution to the learned Judicial Magistrate that the case deserves his prompt attention so as to be closed within six months from the date of receipt of the records for which he should take adequate care and action. ( 6 ) IN the result and subject to the above observation, the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed. The lower Court records should be sent back at once. Petition dismissed. .