Judgment : This revision is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, in C.C. No.191 of 1988 for the offences under Secs. 498-A and 406, Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The revision petitioner herein who is the wife of the first respondent, filed a complaint before the third respondent police alleging that her husband and her mother-in-law the second respondents, were harassing her demanding dowry and that she was also driven out from the house, that though 8 1/2 sovereigns of jewels, cash Rs.5,000 and articles worth Rs.4,500 was given to her at the time of the marriage respondents 1 and 2 had returned only 10 grams of jewels and articles worth Rs. 1,500 and therefore she had filed this complaint for breach of trust. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after going through the papers, has found that already the police had forwarded a report under Sec. 173, Code of Criminal Procedure stating that it was mistake of fact, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also had accepted the report and recorded the same, but subsequently on the direction of Superintendent of Police, further investigation was done and a fresh report was filed on the basis of which, the case was re-opened for trial and as this procedure is against law, the accused cannot be punished. With regard, to the merit of the allegations also, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had gone through the evidence and has found that the allegations against the accused are not established and therefore they cannot be punished. 3. With regard to the merit of the case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.R. Subramanian submitted that he cannot seek to re-assess the evidence in the revisional stage and therefore, he is not challenging the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with regard to the merit of the allegations, but his contention is only with regard to the finding of the learned Magistrate holding that the further investigation by the police is illegal. Even on a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses and the documents, there are inconsistencies to doubt the petitioner’s version. In the complaint Ex.P-1 it is alleged that the first accused insisted to bring Rs. Even on a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses and the documents, there are inconsistencies to doubt the petitioner’s version. In the complaint Ex.P-1 it is alleged that the first accused insisted to bring Rs. 2,000, but in the evidence it was stated that he was demanding Rs.20,000 P.W.4 said to be a panchayator has also stated in his evidence that during his panchayat has also stated in his evidence that during his panchayat nobody represented that the complainant wife was harassed demanding dowry. Anyhow, as the evidence cannot be re-assessed in this revision and the learned counsel also does not argue upon the merit of the allegations in the complaint the findings of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate holding that the prosecution has not proved the offence has to be accepted. 4. The legal contention taken up by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the second investigation by the police is not illegal in this case as Sec. l73(8), Code of Criminal Procedure permits for such further investigation and therefore fresh report sent by the police after the first report is permissible under law and therefore, the court was right in taking up this case for trial on the basis of the second report. The learned counsel Mr.Subramanian referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Rama Shankar v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1956 All. 525, holding that submission of the charge-sheet is not a judicial act and even if the previous report of the police officer did not support the allegation of the complaint, the subsequent charge-sheet can be acted upon. But following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamalapathi v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 777: 1979 Crl. L.J. 679, this Court in Chandrasekhara Pandian v. Muthu Karuppa Thevar, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 347, has held that the acceptance of the report of the police is a judicial order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has referred to the decision in Kamalapathi v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 777:1979 Crl. L.J. 679, wherein it is held that once the Magistrate had recorded the report of the police that the complaint was a mistake of fact, the aggrieved party, should agitate the matter in the higher court if he wanted to re-open the case for investigation. L.J. 679, wherein it is held that once the Magistrate had recorded the report of the police that the complaint was a mistake of fact, the aggrieved party, should agitate the matter in the higher court if he wanted to re-open the case for investigation. In this case, the learned Magistrate has referred that a charge-sheet Ex.D-1 was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and on 210. 1987 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also had accepted this report. According to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, this order of the learned Magistrate is found from Ex.P-4. He has referred to Exs.D-2 and P-4 for acceptance of the learned Magistrate. It appears that after this order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police had given direction to further investigate the case and a request was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for permission to further investigate the case. The learned Magistrate has taken the view that the then Chief Judicial Magistrate did not pass any order permitting for the fresh investigation, but he had simply ordered under Ex.P-6 to keep the First Information Report without closing it. The lower Court has found that when once the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed a Judicial Order accepting the report of the police, unless that order was set aside by the higher court, there cannot be free investigation by the police and the learned Magistrate also had no powers to permit the police for further investigation. In Tarigopula Venkata Ramdas v. State of Andhra Predesh, 1990 M.L.J. (Crl.)694, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when the Magistrate had accepted the referred report of the police and closed the case, the police cannot re-investigate the case and even the charge-sheet filed by the police after such second investigation is illegal and the Magistrate cannot act upon that. No doubt, the complainant must be informed of the acceptance of the report by the Magistrate and therefore the notice to the complainant is mandatory as held by the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1285. This Court in Nalaya Gounder v. Thiruvengadam, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 316, has held that even if the report was accepted by the Magistrate and the complaint was closed, when the complainant was not informed of it, a second complaint is maintainable. This Court in Nalaya Gounder v. Thiruvengadam, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 316, has held that even if the report was accepted by the Magistrate and the complaint was closed, when the complainant was not informed of it, a second complaint is maintainable. But in the case on hand, there was no second complaint but the police which once referred the case as mistake of fact had conducted the fresh investigation even after the judicial order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepting the report and the learned Magistrate has accepted the charge-sheet filed by the police. The lower court in paragraph 18 has referred to the notice to P.Ws.1 and 2 about the referred charge-sheet. When once the referred charge-sheet has been accepted by the Magistrate, as held in Tarigopula Venkata Ramdas v. State of Andhra Predesh, 1990 M.L.J. (Crl.)694, the fresh investigation and filing of the charge-sheet on the direction of the Superintendent of Police is illegal and therefore, the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence in pursuance of that charge-sheet is equally illegal. Therefore, I find that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is perfectly correct and no interference is required. 5. In the result, the revision is dismissed.