Judgment : The question of law that arises in this petition is, whether the Magistrate having accepted the referred report sent by the police can take cognizance of the offence in pursuance of a charge-sheet filed by the police consequent upon the second investigation. 2. For an alleged offence of misappropriation of the funds by the accused acting as President of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society a report was made to the police and it was registered as a crime on 17.3.1983. Thereafter the police conducted investigation and filed a referred report on 30.6.1983, which was accepted by the Magistrate on 20.9.1983. The police also sent a notice to the defacto complainant in compliance of Sec.173(2)(ii), Crl.P.C. on 7.7.1983. Afterwards in March, 1988 the police in the same crime conducted second investigation and filed a charge-sheet on 28.2.1989, which was taken cognizance of by the Magistrate. 3. As submitted by Mr.P.M.Gopal Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, exactly same are the facts in Namasivayam v. State Namasivayam v. State 1981 MLJ. (Crl.) 497. There, the Madras High Court noted that the Co-operative Officials made a report to the police against the petitioner therein, which was registered as a crime, investigation was conducted and a referred report was filed by the Police stating it a mistake of law. The referred report was accepted by the Magistrate on 16.7.1977. Thereafter the police made a second investigation on the original complaint and filed a charge-sheet for an offence under Sec.353, I.P.C. In those circumstances the Madras High Court held that the acceptance of the referred report by the Magistrate become final and therefore the police could not suo motu reopen the investigation. It also held that the order accepting the referred report is a Judicial order and unless that order is set aside reinvestigation is illegal. The decision is, thus, applicable on all fours to the present facts and accordingly it is to be held that the re-investigation or second investigation in the face of the order of the Magistrate accepting the referred report becoming final-there being no revision or appeal against that order is illegal. 4. The decision is, thus, applicable on all fours to the present facts and accordingly it is to be held that the re-investigation or second investigation in the face of the order of the Magistrate accepting the referred report becoming final-there being no revision or appeal against that order is illegal. 4. Incidentally it is to be noticed that the Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 117the Allahabad High Court in Nirmal Singh v. State of U.P. Nirmal Singh v. State of U.P. 1979 Crl.L.J. 266 as also this Court in Criminal Petition No.566 of 1990 dated 6th August, 1990 took the view that the order passed on the referred report is a judicial order and therefore it is immune from being reviewed to enable the Magistrate to later on take cognizance of the offence that gave rise to the referred report. I accordingly, answer the question framed in the negative. 5. In view of this, it is not necessary for me to deal with the other argument of Mr.P.M.Gopal Rao that the extraordinary delay from 1977, the year of offence, to March, 1988 the month of re-investigation or 28.2.1989 the date of taking cognizance of the offence, which having not been explained, renders the prosecution fatal. 6. In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.112 of 1989 on the file of the Addl.J.F.C.M., Srikakulam, are quashed and the petition allowed.