( 1 ) I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's learned advocate has undoubtedly canvassed a very valid point when he submitted that in this case the petitioner was originally arrested on the basis of an allegation that the battery of the vehicle in question was stolen/disposed of by him. Petitioner's learned advocate states that if one were to look at the sequence of events, that the investigation was completed and the police are alleged to have recovered some battery at the instance of the accused; thereafter, a 'b' Report was filed which was accepted by the Court, but on the same day, the police filed a charge-sheet. It is not very clear from the record as to what precisely transpired, but the order of the learned Magistrate seems to indicate that some error had taken place and that the acceptance of the 'b' Report was revoked. ( 3 ) ESSENTIALLY, the petitioner's learned advocate submits that undoubtedly the law as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in ILR 1995 Karnataka 2578 : (1996 Cri LJ 592) in the case of J. Alexander v. State of Karnataka which decision follows five other decisions, namely. (1) AIR 1979 SC 777 : 1979 Cri LJ 679, Kamalapati v. State of W. B. (2) AIR 1979 SC 1791 : (1979 Cri LJ 1346), Ramlal v. State. (3) AIR 1967 SC 1167 : (1979 Cri LJ 1081), Raghubans v. State. (4) 1966 (1) Mys. LJ 127 : (1966 Cri LJ 1033), Kishan v. State. (5) 1988 (2) All Crl LR 952, State v. Gopa Kumar. postulates that in a given situation, where it is established that further investigation into the case is necessary or that fresh facts or material or evidence has come to the notice of the investigating authority, that the acceptance of the 'b' Report is no bar of the continuance of the proceedings. The point raised in this case is slightly different. The petitioner's learned advocate submits that there is no further or fresh material that is involved in this proceeding, but that at the highest, the prosecution contends that the filing of the 'b' Report in the first instance was erroneous. The point raised in this case is slightly different. The petitioner's learned advocate submits that there is no further or fresh material that is involved in this proceeding, but that at the highest, the prosecution contends that the filing of the 'b' Report in the first instance was erroneous. Petitioner's learned advocate submits that effectively, what is being done is that the earlier record is being reviewed and the Court is now being told that on the basis of that very material, an offence is made out and that therefore, the acceptance of the 'b' Report should be revoked. The learned advocate submits that this procedure is not contemplated by law, particularly under Section 173, Cr. P. C. and he advances the submission that the conclusion once arrived at that there is no ground to proceed against the accused would bind the prosecution unless some further or fresh evidence or material is forthcoming. ( 4 ) THERE is considerable substance in the submission canvassed though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that having regard to the general principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, that the filing of the 'b' Report cannot be treated as final. His contention is that if further investigation in the matter is permissible, that it is equally open to a higher authority or some other authority or even the same authority to reconsider the earlier conclusion and if it is found to be erroneous, to apply to the Court for reconsideration of the same. ( 5 ) NORMALLY, I would not have accepted the submission canvassed on behalf of the State because, the duration of proceedings is a matter of consequence, particularly in Criminal Courts, but more importantly because, the rule of finality must apply even to investigations. Unfortunately, the present case is a classic instance of a situation whereby it is very evident that a 'b' Report may be filed due to negligence or a misreading of the record or any error of judgment, but more importantly, having regard to the situation that is now prevalent, for downright corrupt reasons. In situations such as these, it would be impermissible to hold that once a 'b' Report is filed, that the rule of finality would apply and that a review of the same materiel is not permissible. In situations such as these, it would be impermissible to hold that once a 'b' Report is filed, that the rule of finality would apply and that a review of the same materiel is not permissible. All that can be said is that the Court must have consideration for the accused and irrespective of the circumstances under which the 'b' Report is filed, if the Court is asked to re-consider that decision, then it should be necessary for the investigating authority to satisfy the Court of the genuine reasons under which the 'b' Report was erroneously filed on the first occasion. This is a safeguard which is very necessary and the purity of the administration of justice would also require that such an explanation be forthcoming in order to avoid any of the aforesaid situations. The trial Court shall also take note of the fact that even though a certain of confidence is reposed in the investigating agencies, that a Court should not subjugate its judgment to the conclusions of those agencies and therefore, particularly in cases of some seriousness, where a 'b' Report is filed, the Court must insist on the report being signed by a responsible authority of the Department and setting out cogent grounds in support thereof. This procedure would probably to some extent reduce the scope for situations of the type as set out above. ( 6 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, it would be difficult to uphold the contention in the present case that the prosecuting authority is precluded from proceeding with the trial. The fact that this Court had declined to interfere shall, however, not be in reflection on the merits of the matter because, in fairness to the accused who is facing a criminal charge, it must be pointed out that the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt still subsists and that the petitioner-accused shall be entitled to plead his defence on merits at the time of the trial. ( 7 ) THESE are the only directions that are necessary on this petition which is accordingly disposed of. The interim stay to stand vacated. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .