R. L. Gupta, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal revision has been filed by the Centralbureau of Investigation aganist an order dated 19 3. 1991 of the learned Specialjudge, Delhi by which it was directed that further investigation should beconducted and in the first instance the prosecution/investigating officer mustapproach the concerned sanctioning Authority before coming to the Court tofind out if it would grant or refuse sanction to prosecute the respondent. Infact the closure report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) was filed by the CBI in respect of four criminal case Nos. 57to 60 of 1991 against four different sets of accused persons. ( 2 ) SO far as the respondent is concerned, the case was registeredagainst him on 11. 5. 1988 on the allegations that while posted as Juniorengineer, MCD, New Delhi, he amassed assets disproportionate to knownsources of his income. The case was mainly based on the recovery ofspecial bearer bonds of Rs. 5 lakhs during search of his hause while investigation was going on in another case against his father-in-law. ( 3 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for thepetitioner. In the case of Abhinandan Jha and Others appellants v. Dineshmisra and Roopchand Lal and another v. State of Bihar and Another, Criminalappeal Nos. 218 and 238 of 1966 reprted in AIR 1968 SC 117 , the Supremecourt came to the conclusion that though the Magistrate has no jurisdictionto direct the police to submit as charge sheet, he certainly has ample jurisdction to give direction to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code to makea further investigation. If after considering the final report, the Magistratefeels that the investigation is unsatisfactory or incomplete or that there is scopefor further invest igation, it will be open to him to decline to accept the finalreport and direct the police to make further investigation. ( 4 ) IN the present case the learned Special Judge is of the view thatin the first instance the investigating officer should conduct further invettigation and thereafter approach the sanctioning authority before comingto the Court whether it is inclined to grant sanction to prosecute or withold thesame. ( 5 ) AFTER having given my careful consideration. ( 4 ) IN the present case the learned Special Judge is of the view thatin the first instance the investigating officer should conduct further invettigation and thereafter approach the sanctioning authority before comingto the Court whether it is inclined to grant sanction to prosecute or withold thesame. ( 5 ) AFTER having given my careful consideration. I am of the viewthat the directions given by the learned Special Judge at this point of timedo not seem to be contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. Asalready pointed out the Special Judge is competent to give direction to theinvestigating officer to hold further investiuation. After further investigation,it may be possible that the investigating officer is able to collect sufficientevidence against the respondent. In case he is still not able to find sufficientevidence, in the special circumstances of the case, it appears necessary thatthe Investigating officer should lay the evidence collected by him before thesanctioning Authority for its perusal and independent conclusion. The specialcircumstances in this case are that the CBI has no grievance against the order ofthe Special Judge so far as three other criminal cases Nos. 57 to 59 1991 againstother accused are concerned. Therefore, it is not possible for me to understand why the CBI has chosen to file this revision only in a case registeredagainst the respondent specially when there was recovery of special bearerbonds of Rs. 5 lakhs during search from his house which would prima facie goto show assets with the respondent disproportionate to the known sources ofhis income. ( 6 ) I, therefore, do not find any illegality or impropriety in the orderof the learned Special Judge and dismiss the petition.