JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated December 8, 1983, passed by the Special Judge, CBI cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by which the learned Special Judge sent the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation. 2. A First Information Report was registered with the And corruption Department against Gopi Ram Mangal, who was posted as Cotton Purchasing Officer at Rawatsar, on the allegation that he accepted the bribe of Rs. 1000/- from Hanuman Prasad. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the First Information Report, Was that on January 20, 1983, three heaps of cotton were brought by Hanuman Prasad for sale and out of the three, Gopi Ram, Who was working as Cotton Purchase Officer at Rawatsar, purchased two heaps of cotton, where as the third heap, weighing about 400 Qnt. of cotton, was not purchased by the Cotton Corporation of India as it is alleged that the accused petition demanded Rs. 10/- per quintal for the purchase of the same, which Hanuman Prasad did not want to pay and he, therefore, contacted the Anticorruption Department and a trap was arranged and in pursuance of that trap, the petitioner was caught red handed on January 25, 1983 for accepting the bribe of Rs. 1000/-. After registration of the First Information Report, the case was investigated by the CBI and the CBI after completing the investigation, submitted the Final Report. That Final Report was not accepted by the learned Special Judge, CBI cases, Jodhpur, by his order dated December 7, 1983, and the learned Special Judge sent the papers for further investigation to the CBI and after receipt of the papers, the CBI further investigated the matter, took the sanction against the accused to prosecute him and thereafter submitted the charge sheet against the accused. It is against this order dated December 7, 1983, by which the learned Special Judge sent the case for further investigation to the CBI as well as the proceedings initiated thereafter in pursuance of this order, that this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Special Judge had powers to accept or not to accept the Final Report and he can take cognizance, but he cannot direct the investigating agency to form a particular opinion and to submit a report according to such opinion. To submit or not to submit a charge-sheet is the jurisdiction of the police and as the Special Judge has directed the investigating agency to form a particular opinion and to submit the challan and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Special Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further argued that the police, without any further investigation, changed the opinion and presented the challan and therefore, the proceedings pending before the Court below and wholly without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over; Abinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1988 SC 117 , Jauhari Mal and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1969 Allahabad 241 and Tafazul Hussain v. The State of Rajasthan 1986 R.L.R. 806. The learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the CBI, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Special Judge. His further submission is that the Order in the present case was passed on December 7, 1983, and after the passing of this order, the CBI further investigated the matter, took sanction from the authority on March 1, 1984 and presented the challan on April 27, 1984. After the submission of the challan, the charges against the petitioner were framed on August 8, 1984 and after framing of the charges, one witness PW 1 S. Subramanium the Sanctioning Authority was examined and the present petition was filed by the petitioner on October 12, 1987, i.e., after about 31/2 years of presentation of the challan and framing of the charges. He, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being a belated one, deserves to be dismissed. In support of his case, the learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance over: Bata alias Batakrushna Behera and Ors. He, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being a belated one, deserves to be dismissed. In support of his case, the learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance over: Bata alias Batakrushna Behera and Ors. v. Anama Behera 1990 Cr.L.J. 1110 The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, in reply to the delay in filling the complaint, submitted that if the question goes to the root of the matter, the question of delay will not come in the way and that can be agitated and raised even after conviction. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that the functions of the Special Judge, CBI cases, are entirely different and the Special Judge cannot compel the CBI to form a particular opinion on the investigation and to submit a report according to such opinion and if such practice will be allowed, then that will really be an encroachment on the sphere of the investigating agency in compelling the investigating agency to form a particular opinion so as to accord the decision of the Special Judge and to send a report as desired by the Court, depending upon the nature of the decision. Such a function is exclusively within the sphere of the police under the Code. The formation of the opinion and submitting the Final Report or charge sheet is the final step that has to be taken by the investigating agency and not by the Court. After submission of the report by the police, it is within the jurisdiction of the Court: whether to accept the Final Report or not. If the Court did not agree with the report, submitted by the police, then the Court can take cognizance. In the light of this settled position of law, I have to see whether in the present case the learned Special Judge has encroached upon the sphere of the investigation agency or not and whether the learned Special Judge has given any directions, as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner? After going through the order, passed by the learned Special Judge, I am of the opinion that the learned special Judge has not given any direction to the investigating agency to form a particulars opinion or to submit a report in accordance with the direction given by the Court. After going through the order, passed by the learned Special Judge, I am of the opinion that the learned special Judge has not given any direction to the investigating agency to form a particulars opinion or to submit a report in accordance with the direction given by the Court. The learned Special Judge did not agree with the opinion formed by the investigating agency and sent the case back to the CBI to re investigate the matter and to submit the report. The direction given by the learned lower Court reads as under: " bl dkj.k esjs fopkj ls ;g vfuok;Z fjiksVZ Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSA ,slh n'kk esa vkidks fy[kk tkrk gS fd lh0ch0vkbZ0 }kjk bl dsl esa ,df=r dh x;h okLFk dk iqu% fopj.k fd;k tkos vkSj vkxkeh dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tkosA vr% ;g vfuok;Z fjiksVZ e; dsl Mk;jh dks ykSVkbZ tk jgh gSA " The operative portion of the order makes it clear that the direction given by the learned Special Judge was to further investigate the matter and to submit the report. No specific direction, as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been made by the Special Judge and as per the provisions of the Act, the learned Special Judge was competent enough to direct the investigating agency to further investigate the matter and to submit its report. In giving this direction, the learned Special Judge has not encroached upon the jurisdiction of the investigating agency. As the learned Special Judge has not given any specific direction to the investigating agency and if after the receipt of this order, the investigating agency, after obtaining the sanction, submitted the challan in the case, then the investigating agency has not committed any illegality. It may be mentioned that the challan in this case was filed on April 27, 1984 and even the charges were framed on August 8, 1984 and even one witness PW 1 S. Subramanium was examined on April 12, 1985 and, therefore, this belated petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code deserves to be dismissed on this score, also. Though no limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code yet if the question goes to the root of the matter, the petition can be filed at any time. But 'any time' means, not an unlimited period; the period must be reasonable one. Though no limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code yet if the question goes to the root of the matter, the petition can be filed at any time. But 'any time' means, not an unlimited period; the period must be reasonable one. The period for filing the revision petition is three months and, therefore, in such proceedings under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code that may also, be a reasonable period, but that depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and as the framers of the Code did not provide any limitation for filing the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code the Court, therefore cannot provide a limitation for filing such petition, but it will be just and proper that the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code must be exercised within reasonable period. 6. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******