Honble SINGH, J.—In these petitions common question of law has arisen for decision. It is, therefore, proper that they should be disposed of by a common order. (2). Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioners. (3). These petitions have been filed against the following orders passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara, (1) Order dated 9.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 52/1994. (2) Order dated 23.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 48/1994. (3) Order dated 23.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 11/1994. (4) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 75/1994. (5) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 95/1994. (6) Order dated 6.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 56/1994. (7) Order dated 22.12.1994 passed in Criminal Case No. 52/1994. (8) Order dated 23.2.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 49/1994. (9) Order dated 23.1.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 44/1994. By the above mentioned orders, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, declined to treat the report submitted by the Police officers after conducting investigations and, directed the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, to get the investigations done again by a Police Officer, competent to con- duct investigations. (4). The grounds on which the learned Judicial Magistrate refused to treat the reports submitted before him as reports under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code:- (a) the investigations were substantially conducted by Head Consta- bles, who are not empowered to conduct investigations into cognizable offence and therefore the investigations were void, (b) the site plans did not mention the names of the persons who witnessed the commission of offences, (c) the reports were not in the hand writing of the Officer-Incharge of the Police Station and, there was violation of the provisions of Rule 1.8.3 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, and (d) there was breach of the provisions of Rule 3.8 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. (5). (5). The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Head Constables who conducted investigations wholly or partly, were legally competent to conduct investigations, under the directions and supervisions of the Officers Incharge of the Police Stations and the final opinion about the result of investigations was formed by the Officer Incharge of the Police Stations and the reports were also signed by the Officers Incharge of the Police Stations, and, therefore, there was no violation of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 and the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate that the investigation was vitiated and the reports could not be treated as reports under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was not correct. It is, further submitted by him that omission to mention the names of witnesses in the site plan or the inspection memos and the omission to make entries in the case diary of some facts noted by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his order, neither vitiate the reports submitted under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, nor the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in refusing to apply his mind to them under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with a view to find out whether any offence/offences had been committed and whether cognizance thereof should be taken by him, having regard to the evidence collected by the police. The learned Public Prosecutor has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate be directed to treat the reports submitted before him as reports under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and pass orders according to law. (6). The learned counsel for the petitioners has supported the impugned orders. (7). The first question that arises for consideration is whether a Head Constable Police, is empowered to conduct investigation if he is directed to do so, by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station. Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads as under : ``Section 157. (6). The learned counsel for the petitioners has supported the impugned orders. (7). The first question that arises for consideration is whether a Head Constable Police, is empowered to conduct investigation if he is directed to do so, by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station. Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads as under : ``Section 157. Procedure for investigation, (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall pro- ceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender............ (2).............. A bare reading of Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code shows that the investigation into a cognizable offence may be conducted by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station or by any Officer subordinate to him if such Officer is deputed to conduct the investigation in any case. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec.157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, empowers the State Government to direct that the investigation shall not be conducted by a Police Officer of a rank below the rank prescribed by the State Govt., but there is nothing to indicate that the State Government is bound to prescribe the minimum rank of the Police Officer who may be deputed to conduct investigations. It is, therefore, proper to infer that if the State Government does not make an order prescribing the minimum rank of the Officers, who may be deputed to conduct investigations, every Police Officer of whatever rank, shall be competent to conduct investigations if he is deputed by the officer Incharge of the Police to conduct the investigation. (8). The learned Judicial Magistrate appears to have relied on the provisions of Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 to infer that the Head Constables are not competent to investigate notwithstanding the orders given to them by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, to whom they are subordinate. (8). The learned Judicial Magistrate appears to have relied on the provisions of Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 to infer that the Head Constables are not competent to investigate notwithstanding the orders given to them by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, to whom they are subordinate. Rules 6.1 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 reads as under :- ``R. 6.1 Power to investigate-(1) An officer incharge of a police station is empowered by Sec.156 Criminal Procedure Code, to investigate any cognizable offence which occurs within the limits of his jurisdiction. (2) He is empowered under section 157 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, to depute a subordinate to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offenders. Any police officer may be so deputed the investigation shall invariably be taken up and completed by the officer incharge of the police station or an assistant sub- inspector at the first opportunity. (9). There is nothing in Rule 6.1 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 to indicate that the State Government has in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 157(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, prescribed the minimum qualifications of the Police Officer who may be deputed by the Officer Incharge of the police station to conduct investigation. On the other hand, Rule 6.1 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 expressly provides that the Officer Incharge of a Police Station may depute an Officer subordinate to him to conduct the investigation, by going to the spot and investigating the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, Rule 6.1 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 expressly provides that the Officer Incharge of a Police Station may depute an Officer subordinate to him to conduct the investigation, by going to the spot and investigating the facts and circumstances of the case. The mandate that the investigation shall invariably be taken up and completed by the Officer Incharge of a Police Station or an Assistant Sub-Inspector at the first opportunity is calculated to make it mandatory that the commencement of the investigation shall be at the instance of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station or an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and that the final result of the investigation shall also be arrived at either by the Officer Incharge of a Police Station or an Assistant Sub- Inspector of the Police and not by any other inferior Officer, but it does not mean that an Officer below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector or Police cannot be deputed by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to conduct the investigation under Section 157(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (10). It is one of the universally recognised rules of human conduct that every possible way of performing acts which are generally good must be kept open unless, for good and sufficient reasons it is necessary to carve out exceptions and, every possible way of doing an act, which is generally bad must be closed, unless for good and sufficient reasons, it is necessary to carve out exceptions. Investiga- tion into cognizable offences, after they are detected, is essential for the enforcement of the penal laws, which are calculated to impose legal duties and taboos, for the sake of protecting the interests of the State or the public or persons. This explains why, as a general rule, every person is empowered by law to report to the police or any other agency competent to investigate, inquire or try, the fact that one or more offences have been committed and to request such authority to act in the matter with a view to enforce the penal laws in force. The wide scope of the powers conferred by Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the Judicial Magistrates, to take cognizance of the offences, is justified in order to enforce the penal laws of the land. The wide scope of the powers conferred by Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the Judicial Magistrates, to take cognizance of the offences, is justified in order to enforce the penal laws of the land. Restrictions on the powers of the citizens, the police and the courts are in the nature of exceptions necessitated by special circumstances attending particular category of persons, or offences. (11). Once the power to depute a subordinate Police Officer under Section 157(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 is available to the Officer Incharge of a Police Station, it must be held that he may at his discretion, depute any Police Officer subordinate to him, to proceed to the spot and ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary, take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offenders. In the absence of any general or special order issued by the State Government under Section 157(1), prohibiting the Officers of the rank below the rank prescribed by the State Govt., it must be held that the Officer Incharge of the Police Station may depute any police officer subordinate to him for conducting investigation under Section 157(1). It is true that every power has its own limits, which are either expressly prescribed by the statute or, may be implied from the context, but within the legitimate limits of the powers conferred by law, for doing an act which is generally good for the society, prohibitions or restrictions on the exercise of power cannot be presumed lightly. They must be either expressly provided by law or there should be compelling reasons to infer them by implication. (12). For reasons mentioned above it must be held that the view of the learned Judicial Magistrate that investigation could not be conducted by an officer below the rank of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, was erroneous. There was neither any illegality nor any irregularity committed by the Head Constables when they investigated the cases under the orders given to them by the Officers Incharge of their respective Police Stations under Sec. 157(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (13). There was neither any illegality nor any irregularity committed by the Head Constables when they investigated the cases under the orders given to them by the Officers Incharge of their respective Police Stations under Sec. 157(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (13). The view of the learned Judicial Magistrate that the report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code ought to have been written in the handwriting of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station and that he had no right to dictate the same to any Officer subordinate to him is erroneous, and without any basis. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Rajasthan Police Rules 1965 to lead to the inference that the reports or other documents cannot be scribed by any person other than the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, if the contents thereof are dictated by the Officer Incharge of the police station. (14). The view of the learned Judicial Magistrate that if the names of persons who had witnessed the occurrences were not mentioned in the site plan or the inspection note, then there would be no fair investigation, is without any basis. The site inspection notes and site plans are supposed to contain a description of those facts which the Officer inspecting the site perceives with his own sense organs. Site plans and inspection notes are not supposed to contain any such information as would be hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Besides, the opinions of the Police Officers are completely irrelevant. Omission to mention the names of witnesses in the site plan or the inspection memo, does not render the above mentioned documents vitiated nor makes the investigation unfair. (15). For reasons mentioned above, the impugned orders whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate held the investigations to be vitiated, and declined to consider the reports submitted by the Police under Section 173 of the Criminal Pro- cedure Code and, directed investigation, as per his directions, cannot be said to be legally justified. To allow them to remain in force would amount to perpetuating the abuse of the process of the Court. The petitions are, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. To allow them to remain in force would amount to perpetuating the abuse of the process of the Court. The petitions are, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to treat the reports submitted by the Police, after investigation, as reports submitted under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and pass orders according to law.