JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, upholding his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 279 and 337. I. P. C. 2. Facts. The injured (P.W. 2) was returning home from the market on 13-1-1979 at about 6. 30 p. m. When he was in front of Puri Hotel near the house of one Sana Mian, the Petitioner came driving a scooter and dashed against him. As a result, he fell down, injured and one of his legs was fractured. After the accident, the Petitioner went away on the plea of getting a rickshaw to remove the injured to the hospital, but he never returned. Ultimately, however, he was removed to the hospital where it was suspected that one of his legs was fractured and he was kept under treatment. His brother (P.W. 1) lodged F. I. R. (Ext. 1), after which investigation commenced. During investigation, however, it could not be ascertained that the Petitioner was responsible for the accident and the injury on P.W. 2. Therefore, a final report dated 28-2-1979 was submitted to the court stating therein to dose the case as there was no clue of the person who had committed the offences. The final report was placed before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri, on 7-5-1979 who recorded the following order: "Seen the F. O. and R. N. The case is true Under Section 279/338, I. P. C." After the aforesaid order was recorded, nothing happened. But all of a sudden on 26-9-1979 a charge-sheet and a supplementary charge-sheet for the same offences against the Petitioner were placed before the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the offences and issued process. Subsequently the Petitioner was put to trial in which he took the defence that he was not involved of the accident and was not responsible for the injury caused to P.W. 2. 3. The case came to be tried before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri, who accepted the prosecution case and held the Petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 337, I. P. C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count. On appeal, the learned. The case came to be tried before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri, who accepted the prosecution case and held the Petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 337, I. P. C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count. On appeal, the learned. Additional Sessions Judge concurred in the findings and affirmed the judgment of conviction under Sections 279 and 337, I. P. C.. While affirming the sentence passed u/s 279 against the Petitioner, he set aside the sentence passed u/s 338, I. P. C. 4. Miss. S. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that after the final report was accepted by order dated 7-5-1979 the investigating officer had no authority according to the Code of Crimina] Procedure ('Code' for short) to further investigate into the case without there being a direction by the Judicial Magistrate and so the case could not proceed according to the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences under Sections 279 and 338, I. P. C. could not be taken and the whole procedure that was adopted was not in accordance with law. She further urged that witnesses were not found at a particular stage of the investigation, for which a final report was submitted to court. The fact that subsequently witnesses were produced in supporter, of the alleged accident will itself show that the prosecution witnesses had not seen the actual occurrence and came forward, to support the prosecution case, because they were interested in P.Ws. 1 and 2. In such circumstances, their evidence being wholly unreliable should be rejected and the Petitioner acquitted of the charges. 5. The first contention raised by Miss. Panda had also been raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On interpretation of different provisions of the Code he opined that even after submission of final report on fresh evidence coming to light a charge-sheet could be submitted by the police. In order to examine the point it is necessary to construe Sections 169. 170 and 173 of the Code together. On interpretation of different provisions of the Code he opined that even after submission of final report on fresh evidence coming to light a charge-sheet could be submitted by the police. In order to examine the point it is necessary to construe Sections 169. 170 and 173 of the Code together. According to Section 169, if after investigation the officer in charge of the police station finds that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, then such person if in custody shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties and subject to other conditions laid down therein. To the present case the provisions of Section 169 are obviously not applicable, because the Petitioner had not been arrested and so the question of his release u/s 169 of the Code for deficiency of evidence against him did riot at all arise. According to the provisions of Section 170, if after investigation it appear to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, then the police officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial and ace further as provided in the said section. Section 173 of the Code deals with the report of the police officer on completion of investigation. According to Sub-section (2) thereof, as soon -as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the farm prescribed by the State Government. It is, well established that a report according to Sub-section (2) of Section 173 includes a final report and a charge-sheet". In support of the above view, I would like to refer to a decision reported in Abhinandan Jha and Others Vs. It is, well established that a report according to Sub-section (2) of Section 173 includes a final report and a charge-sheet". In support of the above view, I would like to refer to a decision reported in Abhinandan Jha and Others Vs. Dinesh Mishra where it was held that investigation under the Code takes in several aspects, and stages, ending ultimately with the formation of an opinion by the police as to whether, on the material covered and collected a case is made out to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial, and the submission of either a charge-sheet or a final report is dependant on the nature of the opinion, so formed. The formation of the said opinion, by the police, as pointed out earlier, is the final step in the investigation, and that final step is to be taken only by the police and by no other authority. It was also held that when a Magistrate is dealing with a report submitted by the police, u/s 173, that no case is made out for sending up an accused for trial, which report is also called as a 'final report', if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the final report is not based on a full and complete investigation, he will have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police u/s 156(3) of the Code to make further investigation. Further investigation is also contemplated in Sub-section (8) of Section 173 and after such further investigation the officer incharge of a police station Investigation into the offence on obtaining sufficient incriminating materials may ultimately submit a charge-sheet against the accused which is also in the nature of a repone under Sub-section (2) thereof. In other words, construing subsection'" (2) and (8) of Section 173 conjointly, it can be found that even after a final report has been submitted to the Magistrate on the ground of deficiency or lack of evidence against the accused, a further investigation is not precluded and if on further investigation sufficient incriminating materials are obtained against the accused, a charge-sheet which is in the nature of a police report can also be submitted against the accused on the basis and on consideration of which the Magistrate can take cognizance of offence or offences. This view finds support by a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Krishna Lal Gulati Vs. This view finds support by a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Krishna Lal Gulati Vs. The State, one of the contentions before the learned Judge was that once the final report had been accepted by the Magistrate, there was no jurisdiction to reopen the case and accept the charge-sheet and on the basis of it take cognizance of the offence. Sections 169, 170 and 173 were construed together and it was observed that report occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 173 includes a final report and a charge-sheet. It was further held that formation of the opinion on the materials already collected and taking steps for the filing of a charge-sheet are also steps towards the investigation of the case. If the police officer was competent to investigate into the case even after the submission of the final report and if the formation of the opinion on the materials available and the tiling of a charge-sheet are nothing but steps towards the investigation of the case, there was no justification to hold that the officer in charge of the police station had no power to submit the charge-sheet even after he had submitted the final report. 7. In the present case first of all, a final report was submitted by the police stating in detail therein that the occurrence of accident in which P.W. 2 was injured had actually taken police in the manner stated in the F. I. R. (Ext. 1), but in the absence of adequate evidence the Petitioner could not be forwarded to the court of the Magistrate according to the provisions of Section 170 of the Code. Therefore, at the first instance, a final report which in other words was a police report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code was submitted. Even though a police report bad been submitted, the officer-in charge of the police station did not cease to have jurisdiction to make further investigation according to Sub-section (8) of the aforesaid section and so further investigation even at the instance of the informant was carried resulting in submission of the charge-sheet on the basis of which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 279 and 338. I. P. C, Order dated 7-5-1979 shows that the case was not closed. I. P. C, Order dated 7-5-1979 shows that the case was not closed. 'On the other band, it was recorded that the case was true u/s 279 and 338, C P. C.. Miss. Panda attempted to show that the order dated 7-5-1979 was interpolated subsequently as if to show that although the case was dropped as mistake of fact it was corrected to show that it was true. There is, however, no material to come to the conclusion that the interpolation was made by someone else subsequently. It is therefore, clear that although at the first instance on the Oasis of a final report; the learned Magistrate found that the case was true under Sections 279 and 338. I. P. C., be did not drop the proceeding and when about four months later a charge-sheet was submitted he took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the Petitioner and issued process. In my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to do so and therefore, the subsequent trial of the Petitioner cannot be said to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The first contention of Miss. Panda is untenable. 8. The next contention is with regard to the merit of the case. According to Miss. Panda all the witnesses spoke in favour of the prosecution, because they were produced by the informant. P.W. 7, one of the investigation officers who submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioner stated that at first he had submitted a final report after completion of investigation. Subsequently after lapse of about six months the complainant (informant) produced more witnesses who disclosed some clause. The investigation was reopened and charge-sheet was submitted. The learned courts below on scrutiny of the prosecution evidence concurrently found that the Petitioner was responsible for the accident on account of which p, w. 2 sustained injury on his right leg which was suspected to be a fracture. It was not ascertained from the cross-examination of the witnesses that they made statements after long delay to the investigating officer so that their statements were suspect. On the other hand, a glance at the evidence will show that they were consistent in their version. It is well known that an exercise of criminal revisional jurisdiction the High Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent finding of facts. On the other hand, a glance at the evidence will show that they were consistent in their version. It is well known that an exercise of criminal revisional jurisdiction the High Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent finding of facts. In this case there are no such circumstances as to !impel me to 'disbelieve the, prosecution witnesses and take a contrary view:. Therefore. I uphold the truth of the prosecution case and reject the contention of Miss. Panda. 9. For the foregoing reasons the criminal revision is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. 10. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed