V. GOPALASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the complainant against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack, dated 9-11-1983 in ICC No. 330 of 1983 acquitting the accused persons under Section 256 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ). ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents Mr. S. S. Das, while supporting the impugned order, has submitted that the very order taking cognizance and directing issue of process to the accused persons (the present respondents) having been passed in violation of Section 202 of the Code, the entire criminal proceeding against the respondents was vitiated on that score as well. In the present case the complaint petition was filed in the court of the C. J. M. , Cuttack, who had sent the case to the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, for inquiry under Section 202, of the Code after such inquiry when the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, submitted his report, the C. J. M. perused the report and on such perusal took cognisance against the accused persons under Sections 448 and 427, IPC and issued processes against them. Thereafter the proceedings continued against the accused till the impugned order was passed. ( 3 ) THE relevant portion of Section 202 of the new Code is quoted below. "202. Postponement of issue of process.- (1) any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Sec. 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding :" (Underlining is mine) to indicate the change brought about by Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the new Code the relevant portion of Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the old Code is quoted below. "202. Postponement for issue of process. "202. Postponement for issue of process. (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance, or which has been transferred to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against and either inquire into the case himself or, if he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the first class, direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him or by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint : xx xx xx" (Underlining is mine) so Section 202 of the old Code authorised a Magistrate to have an inquiry made by a Magistrate subordinate to him. Such a course is not open to him under Section 202 of the present Code, as the provision for inquiry by a subordinate Magistrate has been deleted from Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of tile new Code. According to Section 202 of the new Code if the Magistrate decides to hold an inquiry into the matter that inquiry must be done by himself and he cannot direct some other Magistrate to conduct the inquiry. This is the view held by this Court in Om Prakash Sahu v. Manmohan Mohanty, (1984) 57 Cut LT 355, relying on two Division Bench Decisions of the Patna High Court in Jiten Tiwari v. State of Bihar, ILR (1978) 57 Patna 903, and Shrimati Janik Devi v. State of Bihar, ILR (1979) 58 Pat 79, and a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Asoke Chatterjee v. Smt. Manisha Mukherjee, 1976 Cri LJ 876. ( 4 ) THE next question is whether the expression "such other person" occurring in Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the Code to whom a direction can be issued for investigation includes a Judicial Magistrate. ( 4 ) THE next question is whether the expression "such other person" occurring in Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the Code to whom a direction can be issued for investigation includes a Judicial Magistrate. The term "investigation" has been defined in Section 2 (h) of the Code thus :" 'investigation' includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf :"thus investigation can be conducted either by a police officer or by any person other than a Judicial Magistrate who is authorised in this behalf. So the very definition of the term 'investigation' excludes the possibility of the expression "such other person" occurring in Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 including a Judicial Magistrate as well. ( 5 ) IN the present case the C. J. M. had no jurisdiction to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Cuttack, to conduct the S. 202 inquiry. So he acted illegally when basing on the inquiry report received from the subordinate Judicial Magistrate he issued the processes to the accused under Sections 448 and 427, IPC. Hence the criminal proceedings against the respondents would have been, even otherwise also, liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) ON a perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint petition. In the result, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.