JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - The relevant facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows The present Petitioner lodged the F.I.R. alleging that on 25-6-1955 at about 5 P.M. at village Upalada (within Ganjam district the opposite party high-handedly cut and removed a teak tree belonglng to her. On the basis of the F.I.R. the police registered G.R. Case No. 196 of 1985 against the opposite party under Sections 379 and 506, IPC. The Police after investigation submitted the final report No. 27 dated 31.10.1985 after giving notice of the same to the opposite party. 10-12-1985, after considering the final report and the other police papers the teamed S.D.J.M. accepted the final report. Subsequently on 9-1-1986 the present Petitioner making the very same allegations as in the FIR, filed the complaint petition against the opposite party in Ice No. 4 of 1986 and the Learned S.D.J.M. by his order dated 10-1-1986 took cognisance against, the opposite party under Sections 379 and 506, IPC. On a petition filed by the accused in the Complaint Case (opposite party) stating that the Complaint Case is not maintainable, the learned S.D.J.M. by his order dated 21-7-1986 discharged the accused u/s 245(2), Code of Criminal Procedure Being aggrieved by the said order of discharge, the complainant has preferred this revision. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. discharging the accused is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 245(2), Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. Section 245(2), Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a Magistrate may discharge an accused, for reasons to be recorded by him, if the considers the charge to be groundless. On a perusal of the impugned order his Seen that the learned S.D.J.M. no doubt found the charge in the Complaint Case to be groundless, but he arrived at such a finding solely on the ground that he had earlier accepted the final report. The impugned order would disclose that he discharged the accused as he felt that in view of his accepting the final report earlier, he was not legally competent to proceed with the Complaint Case. For holding such a view, he relied on the decision Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Another. The impugned order would disclose that he discharged the accused as he felt that in view of his accepting the final report earlier, he was not legally competent to proceed with the Complaint Case. For holding such a view, he relied on the decision Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Another. But against the said decision an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reversed the said decision of the Patna High Court in Gopal Vijay Verma Vs. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Others, . The Supreme Court, while reversing, the judgment the Patna High Court, held as follows: The High Court was dearly in error in thinking that the Magistrate could not take cognisance of a case upon complaint because he had earlier refused to take cognisance of the case on a polke report.... In Srinibas Balabantaray v. Addl. Sessions Judger Korapat 1990 (I) OLR 179 : 69 (1990) CLT 175, the question whether once having accepted the final report submitted by the police officer after investigation, the Court had no jurisdiction to review its order and take cognisance, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. Relying on Gopal Vijay Verma's case (supra) of the Supreme Court, this Court held that the mere acceptance of the final form does not deprive the Court of the power to take cognisance on the basis of a complaint petition subsequently filed. Hence relying on Gopal Vijay Verma's case of the Supreme Court and Srinibas Balabantaray's case of this Court (supra), I hold that as the impugned order of discharge was passed by the Magistrate on the sale ground that as he had accepted the final report earlier, he was not legally competent to proceed with the Complaint Case, the same is liable to be set aside on that score alone. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even the earlier order of the Magistrate dated 10-12-1985 accepting the final report and dropping the criminal proceeding is not in accordance with Jaw. No doubt the Police submitted the final report on 31-10-1985 after giving notice of the same to the informant (the present Petitioner) and the learned S.D.J.M. dropped the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 196 of 1985. No doubt the Police submitted the final report on 31-10-1985 after giving notice of the same to the informant (the present Petitioner) and the learned S.D.J.M. dropped the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 196 of 1985. On a perusal of the order-sheet in the G.R. Case it is seen that the Magistrate has given no notice to the informant providing him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the final report. In Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of giving such notice when it observed as follows: There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer-in-charge of a police station under Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is no inclined to take cognisance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognisance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognisance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information Report the Magistrate must given notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. From the above observations of the Supreme Court it is dear that giving of such notice to the informant providing him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the final report is mandatory. The learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that in this case admittedly notice of the submission of the final report was served on the informant by the Police on 31-10-1985 and so it was open to the complainant to file a protest petition within seven days from the date of receipt of such notice in case she felt aggrieved by the submission of the final report. In Bhagwant singh's case (supra) the Supreme Court categorically held: The Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the repert. The notice was meant to provide the informant with an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the report. Hence I find that a notice merely given by the Police at the time of filing of the final report is no substitute for, nor can be equated with, the notice which should be given by the Magistrate to the informant providing him with an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the final report. (See Srinibas Balabantaray's case (supra). 5. Hence it is seen that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10-10-1985 accepting the final report and dropping the proceeding is not in accordance with law. As observed by this Court in Srinibas Balabantaray's case (supra) no time limit is prescribed in the statute for submission of the protest petition. At this stage the invalidity of the Magistrate's order dated 10-12-1985 dropping the proceeding is not of much relevance as cognisance was taken against the accused under Sections 379 and 506, IPC subsequently on a complaint petition filed by the informant. 6. In the result, I find that the impugned order of discharge : passed by the reamed Magistrate is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 245(2), Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, I hereby set aside the said order at discharge and remit the case ICC No. 4 of 1986 to the Court of the S.D.J.M. Parlakhemundi, for disposal according to law. Accordingly the revision is allowed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed