JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---When the report about completion of investigation of a cognizable offence popularly known as change-sheet is filed by investigating agency and Court officials refuse to accept it on the ground that it is incomplete and therefore, it is again submitted in the Court aftersome days and after rectifying alleged defect, what would be the date of completion of investigation, the first one or date of subsequent filing of change-sheet? Precisely this is the question for consideration in this criminal application. This question has assumed importance because the first date of filing change-sheet is within statutory limitation prescribed for completion of investigation and second date is outside the said limitation, and thus have a bearing on the question of right to bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. A complaint was lodged at Udgir Police Station on 18-10-1990 by father alleging that his minor daughter has been kidnapped by the petitioner with intent to compel her illicit intercourse and is also raped by him. Crime No. 115/1990 was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested on 28-10-1990. Secine then, he is in custody. A charge-sheet came to e filed in the Court of Justicial Magistrate, First Class udgir, on 25-1-1991 but it was returned by the officer of the Court objecting that copy of some document was not accompanied by the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was resubmitted in the Court on 29-1-1991 along with the copy asked by the Court. Accused petitioner had submitted an application for bail on the ground that the investigation was not completed within the statutory limitation and the charge-sheet was properly filed on 29-1-1991 i.e. beyond the limitation and, therefore, petitioner be released on bail. Learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Latur, by his judgment and order dated 11-3-1991 was pleased to reject this application. Similar prayer is now being made before this Court. 3. Shri S.S. Choudhari, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, submits that there is nothing like an interim charge-sheet and only the final submission of the charge sheet will have to be taken as completion of investigation which was done on 29th of January, 1991 and, therefore, accused petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail by virtue of provisions of section 167(20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In support of his contention Shri Choudhari relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Eknath s/o Laxman Talekar others)1, 1977, unreported Cases Reported (Bom.) 211, which holds that Magistrate has no power to authorise detention of the accused persons in cuotody for a period exceeding the statutory limitation for completion of investigation. Shri Choudhari, therefore, submits that since the charge-sheet was filed on 29th day of January, 1991 being 91st day after the arrest of the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, irrespective of the fact that the charge-sheet was filed subsequent to the statutory limitation. 4. As against this, Shri S.K. Barlota, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State, submitted that the charge-sheet was in fact filed on 25th of January, 1991 and if the officials of the Court had not accepted it, prosecution cannot be blamed. 5. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so far as is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced below :-- "167(1). Wheneverany person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accsued to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecesary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that -- (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter. .......... ............ ..........." This provision contains a necessary safeguard against prolonged detention of the persons accused of cognizable offences and puts a limitation on such detention during investigation. Investigation has been defined by section 2(h) of the Code to include 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. Investigation comes to an end as soon as a report under section 173 is filed. This report may either in the form of what is popularly known as charge-sheet or a final report under section 169. Investigation comes to an end as soon as a report under section 173 is filed. This report may either in the form of what is popularly known as charge-sheet or a final report under section 169. In the instant case, when the charge-sheet was filed in the Court on 25th January, 1991Chemical Analyser's report was not accompanying the charge-sheet and, therefore, the person in charge of the criminal section returned the charge-sheet refusing it to be accepted and it was again filed on 29th January, 1991 along with the Chemical Analyser's report. According to Shri Chaudhary, prosecution is duty bound to give copies of all the documents and statements on which it wished to rely during the trial along with the charge-sheet and if something was not supplied along with the charge-sheet, it cannot be said to be charge-sheet at all and, therefore filing of the charge-sheet indicating completion of the investigation did take place only on 29th January, 1991 and at no time before that. I am afraid, that the contention of Shri Choudhari is not well founded. (6) Supreme Court in (R.K. Dalmia and others v. The Delhi Administration)2, A.I.R. 1962, S.C. 1821 (V-49 C -52) has observed thus : "The charge-sheet is hardly a complete or accurate thesis of the prosecution case. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 173,Cr.P.C., requires the officer in charge of the police station to forward to the Magistrate empowered to take congnizance of the offence on a police report, the report in the prescribed form setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information, and the names of the persons who appear to be acquained with the circumstances of the case." Essentials of a valid report under sub-section (2) of section 173 have been listed in the said sub-section. Even if any document is not filed along with the charge-sheet, prosecution, if able to show good reason, is not precluded from submitting that document at a later stage and if sufficient opportunity is given to the accused, the document can well be accepted. Therefore, merely because the chemical analyser's report was not there, it was totally improper on the part of the Court to refuse to accept the charge-sheet. Therefore, merely because the chemical analyser's report was not there, it was totally improper on the part of the Court to refuse to accept the charge-sheet. Since the Legislature has now put a specific time limit for the completion of the investigation, no charge-sheet or a report about completion of the investigation should be refused to be accepted on grounds like that a copy of the chemical analyser's report is not accompanying or even the accused is not sent along with the charge-sheet. Learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of (Pulandar Singh v. Stateof Madhya Pradesh)3, 1979 Cri.L.J. NOC 155 (Madh. Pra.) had considered the question whether the challen filed without copy of report of serologist and Chemical Analyser would be an incomplete challen or charge-sheet, and was pleased to negative this contention. Whether acceptance of the charge-sheet should be refused on any alleged defect in the said charge-sheet was also considered by the Gujarat High Court, in the case of (Deendayal Krishanchand and others v. State of Gujarat)4, 1983 Cri.L.J. 1583.Learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court was pleased to observe as follows :--- "I msut say at this stage that the refusal by criminal courts either through the learned magistrate or through their office staff to accept the charge-sheet without production of the accused persons is not justified by any provision of law. Therefore, it should be impressed upon all the courts that they should accept the charge-sheet whenever it is produced by the police with any endorsement to be made on the charge-sheet by the staff or the Magistrate pertaining to any omission or requirement in the charge-sheet. But when the police submit the charge-sheet, it is the duty of the Court to accept it especially in view of the provisions of section 468 of the Code which creates a limitation of taking cognizance of offence." Section 468 is one of the considerations which weighed in the mind of learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court. But consideration of provisions of section 167 aslo emphasizes duty of the Court to accept the charge-sheet as is submitted. If a charge-sheet is refused on an untenable ground and is returned, it would give rise to the dispute about the determination of the point of time at which the investigation has ended. But consideration of provisions of section 167 aslo emphasizes duty of the Court to accept the charge-sheet as is submitted. If a charge-sheet is refused on an untenable ground and is returned, it would give rise to the dispute about the determination of the point of time at which the investigation has ended. A report under section 173 is an intimation to the Court about the completion of the investigation and mere fact that some document is not produced before the Court or the accused is not produced along with the charge-sheet or the copiessubmitted are not legible or any other reason like this, would be hardly a justification for refusing the acceptance of the charge-sheet. Court would be justified in refusing to accept the charge-sheet only if the charge-sheet does nto give the name of the parties, nature of the information, names of the person who appeard to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, opinion of the Investigating Officer stating that which of the offence is committed and by whom, whether the accused has been arrested and whether he is released on bond with or without sureties and whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. If all this information as is required by section 173(2) is given in the charge-sheet, it is a proper report about completion of the enquiry and as soon as it is filed in the Court, requirement as per section 167 is fulfilled by the prosecution. 7. Shri Choudhari further submitted that even assuming that the first charge-sheet was complete, it was withdrawn from the Court and was again filed, therefore, nothing remained on the Court file on 25th of January, 1991 and hence filing of the charge-sheet has taken place only on 29th of January, 1991 for the purpose of the Court record. Right of an accused person to get himself released on furnishing security if the investigation is not completed within the period prescribed by section 167 is available to him only if the investigation is not completed and the report about such completion is not submitted to the Court. Once it is submitted, what endorsement the Court has made on it, whether the cognizance is directly taken or some lacunas are directed to be removed by the Court before taking cognizance, is not material. 8. Once it is submitted, what endorsement the Court has made on it, whether the cognizance is directly taken or some lacunas are directed to be removed by the Court before taking cognizance, is not material. 8. Shri Choudhar further relied on a judgment of Division Bench of Andhara Pradesh High Court in the case of (Bandi Kotayya v. State (S.H.O. Nandigama) and others)5, A.I.R. 1966 A.P. 377 (V-53 C-115). In this case, preliminary charge-sheet was presented to the Magistrate and he had taken the case on file, given it a number for statistical purpose and remitted the accused produced before him and issued non-bailable warrant in respect of the absconding accused. Subsequent to this, a final charge-sheet came to be filed and the Division Bench ruled that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence after the subsequent and final charge sheet and in law that was report under section 173(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on this judgment, Shri Choudhary submits that if the cognizance can be taken only after the submission of the final charge-sheet i.e. the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that would be point at which the investigation is terminated. Point at which the investigation for consideration of the learned Judges of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court was what can be termed to be taking cognizance and considering the facts in that case, a conclusion was arrived at that the cognizance is taken after the filing of the subsequent charge-sheet. This judgment is hardly of any help when we consider the question at what point the investigation ends. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does nto lay down that the Magistrate shall take cognizance of the offence within 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, and if no cognizance is so taken within that period then accused shall be entitled for release on bail. Limitation is provided for completion of the investigation and not for taking cognizance by the Court. Therefore, this contention raised by Shri Choudhari will have to be repelled.This Criminal Application mainly contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail for non-completion of investigation within the limitation prescribed. This contention is rejected. Shri Choudhari further submits that even on merits, petitioner should be released on bail. Therefore, this contention raised by Shri Choudhari will have to be repelled.This Criminal Application mainly contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail for non-completion of investigation within the limitation prescribed. This contention is rejected. Shri Choudhari further submits that even on merits, petitioner should be released on bail. No material is provided in this Criminal Application for consideration of the case on merits. Petitioner is always at liberty to file an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge who would be in a position to go into the record which will be readily available to him and consider for prayer for bail in the light of that record. 9. In the result, Criminal Application is rejected. Rule is discharge. Rule discharged. -----