( 1 ) THE question that has been raised in this revision is whether the notice issued by the learned Magistrate directed against the present Managing Director of Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited who did not respond on the final report submitted by police, could be considered as sufficient. ( 2 ) THE first information report was lodged by Indra Pal Gautam, the then Managing Director of the said Samiti alleging defalcation of money by the accused-revisionist and a case was started under Section 409, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate issued notice to the complainant after the final report was filed and when he did not appear, accepted the final report. The order sheet dated 27-2-1993 runs thus : "notice was issued to the complainant who is a Government servant. It was served but he did not attend the Court. In these circumstances the F. R. is accepted. " ( 4 ) COUNTER affidavit on behalf of Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. discloses that the notice was served on one Chandra Pal Yadav who was neither the complainant nor he had any connection with the case, It has been stated that Sri Yadav was not examined by the police during the investigation under Section 161, Cr. P. C. So it has been stated that no summons was issued against Indra Pal Gautam, who was the complainant and hence acceptance of the final report was illegal. Sri Gautam filed an affidavit before the learned Sessions Judge (Annexure IV) and denied that he received any notice from the court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in connection with this case. ( 5 ) SECTION 173 (2) (ii) Cr. P. C. provides that the police officer shall also communicate the action taken by him to the person by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. It is undisputed that Sri Indra Pal Gautam lodged the first information report. So according to the provisions of Section 173 (1) (ii) he is entitled to get a notice which was admittedly not done. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel contended that Chardra Pal Yadav, being the present Managing Director of the Samiti, was the person entitled to notice. His version is that Indra Pal Gautam lodged the first information report as Managing Director and not in his personal capacity. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel contended that Chardra Pal Yadav, being the present Managing Director of the Samiti, was the person entitled to notice. His version is that Indra Pal Gautam lodged the first information report as Managing Director and not in his personal capacity. This argument is untenable as the affidavit on behalf of the Samiti did not claim that the notice served on Chandra Pal Yadav was sufficient, They also stated in the affidavit that Sri Indra Pal Gautam is entitled to such a notice as he lodged the first information report and was the complainant of the case. Chandra Pal Yadav did not file any affidavit controverting the claim of Indra Pal Gautam. ( 7 ) IT appears that no notice under Section 173 (2) (ii), Cr. P. C. was given by police. To cure the said defect the learned Magistrate issued notice after receiving the first information report. It appears that the said notice was not directed to the person who was entitled to receive the same. Moreover, the Section is clear that it is the informant who is entitled to notice and not any other person. May be, that Sri Chandra Pal Yadav has been transferred else where and Sri Gautam is his successor. ( 8 ) I do not find any material. to interfere with the order passed on 12-8-1993 by the XIV Additional Session Judge, Meerut, setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 27-2-1993 and remanded back the case to the learned III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, for proceeding according to law. It is hereby directed that if Indra Pal Gautam files/has filed any protest petition against the final report already submitted in that court, he shall proceed according to the law. Revision. dismissed.