A. K. BHATTACHARJI J. ( 1 ) IN this criminal revision the legality of a prosecution initiated on the basis of an investigation made by the Special Crime Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, has been challenged by the accused petitioner. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of a complaint fled before C. M. M. Calcutta by one Ajit Kumar Dhar, Dy. Manager (Law), West Bengal Finance Corporation, against three persons, namely, Shri Gopal Agarwal and Sm. Kusum Agarwal, both Directors of Mangalpota Cold Storage Industries Private Ltd. , 11 Cotton Street, Calcutta and one Ram Balak Singh, proprietor of M/s. Bihar Refrigeration Machinery, 1/2, Srimani Bagan Lane, Salkia, Howrah, it has been alleged in the petition of complaint that an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs was sanctioned by the Corporation as financial assistance to Mangalpota Cold Storage Industries (P) Ltd. for purchase of plant and machineries. The aforesaid Directors of Mangalpota Cold Storage Industries (P) Ltd. appointed Shri Ram Balak Singh, proprietor of M/s. Bihar Refrigerating Machinery, Salkia, Howrah, to manufacture the necessary machinery. Thereafter the accused persons forwarded a proforma bill dated 11. 8. 86 for Rs. 21,50,995. 74 P. submitted by Ram Balak Singh indicating that the machineries ordered were lying ready for delivery and accordingly two cheques of a total amount of Rs. 19,80,786. 99 P. were issued by the Corporation against hypothecation of the assets of the aforesaid accused firm for the supply of plant and machinery. Later it was detected by the Corporation that no plant and machinery had actually been installed at the factory premises of the above Cold Storage. It was accordingly alleged that all the three accused persons noted above had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat that Corporation and had misappropriated the money sanctioned to them for their personal gains. ( 2 ) THE learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at the prayer of the complainant sent the petition of complaint to the Supdt. of Police, C. B. I. , Lindsay Street, Calcutta, for causing investigation u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. treating the complaint as a first information report. ( 2 ) THE learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at the prayer of the complainant sent the petition of complaint to the Supdt. of Police, C. B. I. , Lindsay Street, Calcutta, for causing investigation u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. treating the complaint as a first information report. The C. B. I. after a detailed investigation submitted a charge-sheet before the C. M. M. , Calcutta, against several accused persons including the present revision petitioner under sections 120b/420/468/471 I. P. C. The learned C. M. M. took cognizance of the offences and transferred the case to the fourth Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for disposal. The revision petitioner has challenged the criminal prosecution on several grounds the main ground being that the investigation by the C. B. I. of the alleged offences was absolutely illegal. A rule was issued and further proceeding of the case as against the petitioner stayed. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner Mr. Somen Ghosh challenges the investigation on several grounds. His first and foremost objection is that the C. B. I. cannot be entrusted with the work of investigation in this case for want of the requisite consent of the State Government with respect to the offences involved as required under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. His next objection is that even if there was consent of the State Government for the investigation of the relevant offences the investigation was bad for not being conducted by the actual officer to whom direction was given under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. His another objection is that the officer ordered to investigate the case having an address outside the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court the whole order is without jurisdiction having regard to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 156 Cr. P. C. He also attacks the investigation by the C. B. I. on the general ground that the State Police was primarily entitled to investigate any case and that order for investigation by the C. B. I. could be given only in a special case where the investigation by the general machinery was unsuccessful or otherwise not convincing. His last argument is that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences without applying his mind and that as such the cognizance is bad. His last argument is that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences without applying his mind and that as such the cognizance is bad. ( 4 ) I shall first consider the objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction of C. B. I. to investigate the case. Delhi Special Police Establishment was constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity ). It was a Special Police force apart from the general police force constituted under the Police Act, 1861. The main purpose of constitution of such a force was for the investigation of offences notified under section 3 of the Act within a Union Territory. Section 5 of the Act makes provision for the extension to any area in a State not being a Union Territory the power and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or class of offences specified in a notification under section 3. But notwithstanding the extension of the powers and jurisdiction under section 5 such powers etc. can be exercised only with the consent of the Government of the State concerned in view of section 6 of the Act. ( 5 ) IT will thus be seen that although the Delhi Special Police Establishment was created primarily for the investigation of certain offences notified u/s 3 of the Act in a Union Territory, it could be utilized for such investigation of any of the offences specified in the notification u/s 3 provided the powers and jurisdiction of such Establishment are extended to a State under section 5 and the consent of the State concerned is received u/s 6. It is, therefore, necessary to examine if the investigation by the C. B. I. of the offences alleged in this case has the support of any Notification u/s 3, any Order u/s 5 and any consent u/s 6 of the Act ( 6 ) MR. Anjan Mukherjee appearing for the C. B. I. submits that the jurisdiction of the C. B. I. for the investigation of the offences mentioned in the petition of complaint filed by the Dy. Manager (Law), West Bengal Financial Corporation has been tested and established in several decision of this High Court. Anjan Mukherjee appearing for the C. B. I. submits that the jurisdiction of the C. B. I. for the investigation of the offences mentioned in the petition of complaint filed by the Dy. Manager (Law), West Bengal Financial Corporation has been tested and established in several decision of this High Court. He refers to an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2237 of 1989 (Pawan Kumar Guin v. Supdt. of Police, C. B. I.) and also another judgment of a Single Bench of this Court reported in 1992 (1) C. L. J. 482 (Purnima Parotia and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others) in support of his claim that the C. B. I. is duly authorised to investigate the offences alleged in the petition of complaint. In Criminal Revision No. 2237 of 1989 Mrs. Padma Khastagir, J. held that the C. B. I. had jurisdiction to investigate the offences u/s 420, 468 and 467, I. P. C. On the basis of a Notification of the Central Government dated the 18th July, 1988. Referring to this document Mr. Somen Ghosh submits that it is actually not a statutory Notification but a letter issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation addressed to all Solicits. of Police, Special Police Establishment, detailing the offences under the various statutes which can be investigated by the C. B. I. On being directed by the Court Mr. Anjan Mukherjee produces the communication dated the 18th July, 1988 (C. B. I. letter No. 4/1/86-LD 1268 dated 18. 7. 88) and on scrutiny it is found that it is in fact not a Notification but an informative communication showing the offences the C. B. I. has been authorised to investigate in various States. Mr. Anjan Mukherjee also produces the copy of a Notification No. 1869 P1 dated 21. 4. 60 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Home (Police) Deptt. , giving consent u/s 6 of the Act to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of West Bengal for the investigation of the offences mentioned in four different Notifications specified therein. The West Bengal Government's Notification dated 21. 4. 60 is reproduced below. , giving consent u/s 6 of the Act to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of West Bengal for the investigation of the offences mentioned in four different Notifications specified therein. The West Bengal Government's Notification dated 21. 4. 60 is reproduced below. "in pursuance of the provisions of section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (25 of 1946) and in supersession of all previous orders on the subject the Governor is hereby pleased to consent to the Delhi Special Police Establishment exercising powers and jurisdiction in the State of West Bengal for the investigation of the offence specified in the following notifications of the Government of India in the Minister of Home Affairs issued under section 3 of the said Act, namely :- (i)notification No. 7/5/55-AVD dated the 6th November 1956 (ii)notification No. 7/1/57-AVD dated the 12th February 1957 (iii)notification No. 7/7/57-AVD dated the 21st June 1957 (iv) notification No. 7/3/57-AVD dated the 27th August 1957 by order of the Governor, sd/- M. M. BASU secretary to the Government of West Bengal. " ( 7 ) AS I have already stated, conjoint effect of three sections is necessary to enable the C. B. I. to investigate an offence in a State. There are- (I) A Notification u/s 3 of the Act specifying the offences or classes of offences which can be investigated by the C. B. I. (II) An Order u/s 5 extending the powers and jurisdiction of the C. B. I. to investigate any offences or classes of offences notified u/s 3. (III) A consent given by the State Government concerned u/s 6. So far as Notification u/s 3 is concerned, a Notification No. 7/5/55avd dated 6. 11. 56 has been mentioned in the Government of West Bengal's Notification dated 21. 4. 60 reproduced above. This Notification has been produced and it mentioned the offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 I. P. C. The corresponding Notification u/s 5 of the Act is Notification No. 25-7-60avd dated 21. 1. 61 issued by the Government of India extending the powers and jurisdiction of the C. B. I. to different States including the State of West Bengal to investigate offences of different descriptions including these u/s 420, 468, and 471 I. P. C. So, Mr. 1. 61 issued by the Government of India extending the powers and jurisdiction of the C. B. I. to different States including the State of West Bengal to investigate offences of different descriptions including these u/s 420, 468, and 471 I. P. C. So, Mr. Mukherjee argues that on the basis of these Notifications of the State Government and the Central Government C. B. I. has proper authority to investigate the offence in the instant case. ( 8 ) MR. Somen Ghosh however, raises an objection that the Notification dated the 5th November, 1956 has since been superseded and substituted by another Notification No. 25/12/62 AVD I, dated the 18th February, 1963. According to him this substitution has made the effect of the consent given by the State Government on the basis of its Notification dated 21. 4. 60 nugatory. It is, therefore, necessary to examine this offshoot of the main argument. ( 9 ) IT is true that the Government of India's Notification dated 6. 11. 56 u/s 3 of the Act was substituted by their Notification dated 18. 2. 63. But the substituted Notification retains the several sections of the I. P. C. mentioned in the earlier Notification. There was, therefore, no gap between the supersession of one Notification and the enforcement of the other. In other words the effect of section 3 of the Act so far as the offences mentioned in the present criminal case is concerned was not affected by the substitution of the old Notification by a new one. What the West Bengal Government's Notification No. 1869 P1 dated 21. 4. 60 purported to serve is that it conveyed the consent of the State Government to the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate the offences specified in the different Notifications mentioned therein. Thus without mentioning the offences directly the State Government referred to the documents in which the offences were mentioned. So change of the documents does not affect the efficacy of the Notification giving the consent provided the subject-matter of consent remains unaltered, It is not the case of the petitioner that the offences u/s 420, 468 and 471 I. P. C. have ceased to be included within the Notifications issued u/s 3 or section 5. As a matter of fact a simultaneous Order u/s 5 of the Act (No. 25-12-62-AVD II dated 18. 2. As a matter of fact a simultaneous Order u/s 5 of the Act (No. 25-12-62-AVD II dated 18. 2. 63) was also issued by the Government of India mentioning the offences contained in the other Notification issued u/s 3 of the Act on the same day. It is, therefore, clear that the Notification and Order dated 18. 2. 63 have not affected the validity of the consent given by the State Government by their Notification dated 21. 4. 60. It has not been suggested by any of the parties that this consent was subsequently withdrawn. So I hold that the authority of the C. B. I. to investigate the offences involved in the instant case has not been vitiated for want of consent of the State Government u/s 6 of the Act. ( 10 ) I now proceed to examine the other technical objections regarding the holding of the investigation by the C. B. I. Mr. Somen Ghosh's objections in this regard are that the order of investigation was sent to an officer who did not investigate and that, over and above, the address of the said officer was beyond the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. There is no doubt that an order for investigation made by a Magistrate under sub-section (3) of section 156 Cr. P. C. is meant for an officer-in-charge of a Police Station as referred to in sub-section (1) of the said section. The words "as above mentioned" used in sub-section (3) evidently refers to an investigation by an officer-in-charge of a Police Station. The Act provides in sub-section (3) of section 2 that any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of sub-inspector may subject to any order of the Central Government exercise in the Union Territory the power of a Police Officer-in-charge of a Police Station, In relation to the States where the powers of the Delhi Special Police Establishment have been extended the investigation work is done by the branches/units as specified by the I. G. , D. S. P. E. under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act. It appears that in Calcutta Special Crimes Division, C. B. I. , Calcutta having ifs office at Calcutta and under the charge of the D. I. G. , Calcutta is entrusted with the work of investigation of offences notified u/s 3 committed in the States of West Bengal, Sikkim and the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicober Islands. Officers of the Special Crimes Branch, C. B. I. , Calcutta, have, therefore, jurisdiction over the entire State of West Bengal. So the argument that the direction being given to the Supdt. of Police, C. B. I. , 13 Lindsay Street, Calcutta for holding the investigation, the actual Branch which held the investigation could not do it does not stand. The investigation was held by the Special Crimes Division and as stated above all the Divisions had jurisdiction over the entire State. As regards tire argument that the investigation was held not by the S. P. but by an officer subordinate to him is also a fallacious one. Under sub-section (1) of section 156 Cr. P. C. the investigation may be actually held by a Subordinate Officer but the report must be forwarded by the O. C. Here the report was forwarded by Sub-Inspector of Police who is deemed to have been vested with the power of the officer-in-charge of a police station. The particular fact is not denied by Mr. Ghosh. ( 11 ) MR. Ghosh has referred to a few decisions. One is AIR 1972 SC 2639 (Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and Others ). Reference to section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. in this reported case has a different connotation and does not help to assist the contention raised in this case. In the aforesaid case it was held by the majority judgment that a reference to police for investigation u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. is a pre-cognizance action of the Magistrate and that the police in such a case has the full liberty to investigate on the basis of an F. I. R. and the Magistrate cannot place any limitations on or direct the officer conducting the investigation how to conduct it. ( 12 ) THE next case cited is AIR 1968 SC 117 (Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Misra ). ( 12 ) THE next case cited is AIR 1968 SC 117 (Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Misra ). In this case the question arose whether a Magistrate could direct the police to submit a charge sheet in a ease where after investigation the police submitted a final report without submitting a charge sheet. The Supreme Court held that even if the Magistrate disagreed with the police, he could not compel them to submit a charge sheet. The Court's decision was that the Magistrate could not control the manner of investigation and impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police. The court was of the opinion that if the Magistrate thought that there was a case for trial and the police report was wrong, he could take cognizance u/s 190 (1) (C) Cr. P. C. Obviously no such problem has arisen in the case. ( 13 ) ANOTHER case cited is AIR 1955 SC 196 (H. N. Rishbud and Another v. The State of Delhi ). It was a case relating to the investigation of a case u/s 5 (4) and proviso to section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act before its amendment by Act 59 of 1952. The Court elaborately discussed the various stages of a police investigation in the face of the question if any defect or irregularity in the procedure of investigation affected a criminal proceeding. The Court considered the implication of sub-section (2) of section 156 Cr. P. C. and held that the said sub-section cures an investigation by an officer not empowered under that sub-section, i. e. with reference to sub-sections (1) and (3 ). Sub-section (1) of section 156 is a provision empowering an officer-in-charge of a police station to investigate a cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate and delimiting his power to the investigation of such cases within a certain local jurisdiction. Where, therefore, there was a specific provision for not getting a case investigated by an officer lower than the Deputy Superintendent of police unless specifically authorised, an investigation held by an officer of inferior rank was held to be not curable by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 156. Where, therefore, there was a specific provision for not getting a case investigated by an officer lower than the Deputy Superintendent of police unless specifically authorised, an investigation held by an officer of inferior rank was held to be not curable by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 156. Although a defect in investigation has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial, deviation from the process of investigation provided in a particular enactment on the basis of a policy could cause prejudice to the accused and was incurable by virtue of section 156 (2) of the Code. Coming to the facts of the present case it is difficult to see how the decision in the above case can assist the petitioner. No particular procedure has been prescribed for the investigation of the offences brought against the accused here. So far as the investigation by the C. B. I. is concerned, it has a very broad base. The investigating machinery has a very wide jurisdiction and I do not find that the investigation suffers from the lack of particular procedure. I also find that no procedural defect wising out of any order or notification under sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Act vitiates the investigation here. There is, therefore, no incurable defect in the investigation of the nature discussed in AIR 1955 SC 196 . ( 14 ) THIS, however, brings up to the last phase of the defect in investigation pointed out by Mr. Ghosh. He argues that investigation by the CBI without resorting to the general procedure of investigation through the officer-in-charge of a police station is not permissible in law. According to Mr. Somen Ghosh investigation in all types of case shall be conducted through the general police force of the State and the investigation through the C. B. I. can be ordered only when the general police fails or there are special reasons for a further investigation when the investigation by the general police is considered by the Court inadequate. In this respect Mr. Ghosh refers to two decisions. First is Dr. Ajoy Kumar Basu v. Union of India, reported in 1990 (1) Calcutta Law Journal 228. In this case the police on completion of investigation involving the death of one Dr. Amitabha Basu submitted a final report stating that the death was caused by accidental drawing. In this respect Mr. Ghosh refers to two decisions. First is Dr. Ajoy Kumar Basu v. Union of India, reported in 1990 (1) Calcutta Law Journal 228. In this case the police on completion of investigation involving the death of one Dr. Amitabha Basu submitted a final report stating that the death was caused by accidental drawing. The father of the deceased filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the charge of investigation if the Court so ordered. A question of jurisdiction regarding the place of commission of the offence arose in course of the proceeding. The West Bengal Police reported that the offence of abduction had not been committed within the State of West Bengal and that the investigation could be made by the Orissa Police or any other agency. It was found that two petitions were filed before the Magistrates' Courts in West Bengal and Orissa respectively for re-opening the case. The High Court considering the fact that two petitions under sections 156 (3) and 173 (8) Cr. P. C. were pending before the Magistrates of West Bengal and Orissa and that equally efficacious reliefs could be obtained from those forums declined to allow any relief in the writ petition. ( 15 ) THE second case cited is AIR 1985 SC 195 (Stale of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sampatlal and Ors. ). In this case investigation was taken up by the State Police to reveal the cause of death of two teenaged boys-Tirthankar Das Sarma and Sanjit Chatterjee. Those boys were missing and their missing report was given publicity in Radio and Television. Subsequently their dead bodies were found at a place far away from their home with two railway tickets. The police allegedly gave out that it was a case of suicide and a letter was written to the Acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court by one Sampatlal urging upon him to make arrangement for an investigation of the case through an independents machinery. Another letter was also received by the Acting Chief Justice highlighting the facts of the above case and drawing his attention to the growing discontent of the public to the police inaction in the matter. Another letter was also received by the Acting Chief Justice highlighting the facts of the above case and drawing his attention to the growing discontent of the public to the police inaction in the matter. The above two letters were treated as writ petitions and on their basis a Single Judge of the High Court took up the case and a rule was issued upon the State Govt. The learned Judge however, directed the D. I. G. , C. B. I. to cause an enquiry in the matter and report to the court pending disposal of the rule. On an appeal before the Division Bench against the order of the single Judge the said Bench appointed the D. I. G. , C. B. I. as a Special Officer for making an investigation. It was also ordered that in case the said officer was unwilling to undertake the investigation, some other special officer might be appointed. On an appeal before the Supreme Court the said Court after reviewing the respective functions of the Court and the Magistrate in the process of investigation and trial of an offence disapproved the appointment of any special officer while the investigation by the police was still pending and set aside the order. ( 16 ) DO the two cases cited above make out any proposition that the C. B. I. cannot investigate a case to the exclusion of an investigation by the general police? The facts of the two cases cited above may be looked into. In both the cases investigation in the usual way was taken up. In one case it ended in a final report and in the other it was still pending and the public apprehended that the police having already taken the view that it was a case of suicide was not expected to make any bona fide attempt to reveal the truth. The ratio of the two decisions is that the work of investigation being within the exclusive domain of the police, the Court shall not interfere with it. The Court's power of trial begins after it takes cognizance of an offence and if it takes cognizance on the basis of a police report, the police must be given a free hand to conduct the investigation and submit a relevant report. The Court's power of trial begins after it takes cognizance of an offence and if it takes cognizance on the basis of a police report, the police must be given a free hand to conduct the investigation and submit a relevant report. In none of the above cases the point whether the general police or the C. B. I. shall start the investigation has been raised or discussed. ( 17 ) IN fact from the scheme of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 it appears that the Delhi Special Police Establishment is a special police force having the same function of investigating a criminal case in respect of certain offences brought under the purview of the Act as the general police have under the Cr. P. C. The Establishment can be utilised for the investigation of those offences also in a State subject to certain conditions mentioned in sections 5 and 6 of the Act. Apart from those conditions there is apparently no other condition, such as the investigation by the C. B. I. must be preceded by an investigation by the general police. The proposition raised by Mr. Somen Ghosh has therefore, no legal basis. If there was any intention of the Legislature that the C. B. I. cannot be asked to investigate a case until and unless the ordinary police has undertaken and completed the investigation, a barring provision to the effect must have been provided in the Act itself. ( 18 ) UNDER sub-section (1) of section 156 Cr. P. C. an officer-in-charge of a police station can investigate a cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate and under sub-section (2) a competent Magistrate can order such an investigation. A C. B. I. Officer who is deemed to be an officer-in-charge of a police station by virtue of the provision of the Act may, therefore, legally undertake an investigation under orders of a Magistrate. A, complainant may have his own reasons for preferring an investigation by the C. B. I. It may be due to an expectation of better expertise in the C. B. I. machinery or to other subjective reasons. If the argument of Mr. A, complainant may have his own reasons for preferring an investigation by the C. B. I. It may be due to an expectation of better expertise in the C. B. I. machinery or to other subjective reasons. If the argument of Mr. Somen Ghosh is accepted, the C. B. I. is not likely to undertake any investigation in a State as the general police having once undertaken the investigation there is little chance of having a second investigation by the C. B. I. at a subsequent stage. So there cannot be a bar to the C. B. I's undertaking an investigation at the initial stage under an order of the Magistrate u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. ( 19 ) MR. Ghosh's last argument is that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences without applying his mind. Order No. 2 dated 20. 6. 90 by which the Magistrate took cognizance is as follows :-"charge sheet u/s 120b/420/468/471 I. P. C. was received earlier against accused Nos. (1) to (4) who were not arrested. Seen the F. L. R. containing 30 sheets, pursued (wrongly typed as perused) earlier. Let it be kept with the record cognizance taken. To Shri S. B. Mitra, M. M. Fourth Court for disposal. Ld. T. M. will deal with process against accused no. (1) to (4 ). Sd/- N. K. Bhattacharyya, chief Metropolitan Magistrate, calcutta 20 June 1990. " (Bracketed words are of the Court) ( 20 ) IT appears that the learned Magistrate saw the charge sheet containing 30 sheets and took cognizance. There is, however, no indication what points were considered by him. It is also not expected that he will discuss the evidence collected against the accused persons before the cognizance is taken. It depends on his subjective satisfaction to accept the prima facie nature of the allegation made in the charge sheet. If he peruses the charge sheet and takes cognizance without anything more it cannot be said that he did not apply his mind, particularly when there is no allegation that had he considered the charge sheet more carefully, he would have been satisfied that the allegation was false on the face of it. ( 21 ) FOR all the above reasons I do not see any merit in this application. The Application rejected. ( 21 ) FOR all the above reasons I do not see any merit in this application. The Application rejected. The rule is discharged and the interim order staying further proceeding of the criminal case as against the petitioner is vacated. The Magistrate is, however, directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Rule discharged.