JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This Revision arises out of an order refusing to entertain the petition of the informant in protest against the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. 2. The matter was in the provisional list. With notice to all that the cases may be taken up either on the 26th or 27th July, 1989, if contingencies so arise. To-day I am taking up the cases as per the provisional list for which adequate notice has also been given. Inspite of the same, there is no appearance for the petitioner. Heard Mr. S. K. Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the prosecution and perused the records. 3. Although Mr. Das seriously contended that in view of the thorough investigation by the Investigating Officer and submission of the final report, there is no scope for interference in exercise of the revisional power. 4. I find that the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure of comidering to take cognisance on complaint It is not disputed that a protest petition against a final report submitted by the Investigating Officer is in the nature of complaint. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate ought to have recorded the, initial deposition of the complainant immediately and ought to have given opportunity to the complainant to examine the witnesses to be produced by her. 5. In the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside and the revision is allowed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21st August, 1989 on which date the learned Magistrate shall take steps treating the protest as a complaint arid shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Send back the lower Court records at once. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed