Judgment All the three Criminal Revision Cases arise out of Special Court Cases No. 1/1989, 2/1989 & 3/1989. The learned Judge of 3rd Special Court, Calcutta discharged the accused person on the ground that the accused person is not public servant being the employee of Nationalised Bank and as such the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try these cases. 2. The allegation was that the accused Debabrata Jasu entered into criminal conspiracy with others and in pursuance thereof during the period from March 1986 to July 1986 fraudulently and dishonestly withdrew Rs.3,91,000/- from the account of one Sri Gobinda Paul and thereby cheated the Bank. During investigation it was established that Sri Jasu withdrew Rs.50,000/- forgoing the signature or the account holder of Savings Bank A/C No. 496 standing in the name of Gobinda Paul. An application was moved before the Special Judie for dropping the proceeding or acquitting him on the basis of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court holding therein that the employee of the Nationalised Bank is not public servant. It was also contended that the case was hit under Section 167(5) of the Cr. P.C. The learned Special Judge after hearing the arguments of both the parties and the decisions placed before him was pleased to accept the contention raised by the accused person and discharged him from the respective cases. 3. On being aggrieved thereby the State of West Bengal at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation preferred the present Criminal Revision Cases on the ground that the Supreme Court has already settled the controversy by Its decision reported in (1) AIR 1995 SC 1976 : 1995 Cr LJ (SC) 3630, that the employee of the Nationalised Bank is public servant as the Nationalised Banks are Corporations within the meaning of Clause 12(b) of Section 21 I.P.C. 4. Similar questions of law being involved in all the three matters, all the three matters have taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 1976 : 1995 Cr LJ (SC) 3630 hardly there can be any confusion about the status or the employees of the Nationalised Banks. Therefore the ground on which the learned Special Judge has dropped the proceedings and discharged the accused/opposite party of the three cases cannot be sustained. Therefore the ground on which the learned Special Judge has dropped the proceedings and discharged the accused/opposite party of the three cases cannot be sustained. The decision of the Calcutta High Court on which the learned Special Judge has placed his reliance can hardly override the latest decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the impugned orders in all the three matters cannot be sustained. 6. The learned Advocate appearing for the accused person has raised a law point although it was not pleaded in the affidavit-in-opposite. Question of law can be raised at any stage of the hearing even though it has not taken up either in the petition or in the affidavit-in-opposition. Accordingly, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party was allowed to place his law point before this Court. It is submitted that the Magistrate who took cognizance first acted in derrogation of the legal provisions contained in Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. According to his submission the order of Magistrate taking cognizance is bad as the charge-sheet on the basis of which the cognizance was taken was not complete. According to him, taking of cognizance on the basis of an incomplete charge-sheet is bad-in-law. In support of his submission he has referred to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in (2) 1994 Cr LJ 257 and another decision of Jammu & Kashmir High Court reported in (3) 1994 Cr. LJ 264. It is laid down by the last decision that the police report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5) of the Cr. P.C. 7. Section 2(r) defines the police report and it lays down that police report means a report forwarded by Police Officer to a Magistrate under Section 173(2). Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. lays down that a police report must be in the form prescribed by the State Government stating therein (a) the name of the parties; (b) the nature of information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and if so by whom; (e) whether the accused person has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. In the instant cases, the charge-sheet or the police report contains all these items i.e. the names of the parties, the offence allegedly committed the names of the witnesses, properties seized during investigation etc. Therefore this report in my considered view is a complete report with due deference to the decisions mentioned before me as referred to above I like to hold that the documents contemplated under Section 173(5) of the Cr. P.C. are not the part of the police report but they should accompany the report. 8. The language used in Section 173(5) Cr. P.C. makes it clear -'It lays down when such report is in respect of a case in which Section 170 applies the Police Officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report, all documents seized and all statements recorded. Therefore, all documents collected during investigation and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. shall accompany such report that means the police report. If the documents and statements mentioned in Section 173(5)(a) & (b) be treated by the legislature as part of the police report in that event the expression that such report shall be accompanied by the documents collected during investigation and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Therefore, these documents and statements are not part of such report and for that reason provision has been made to send those documents and statements along with the police report and as such the police report is something independent. 9. The purpose and intention of the legislature to introduce the provision of Section 173(5) Cr. P.C is not far to seek of because before the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 it was the duty of the police to supply copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and the documents collected during investigation to the accused persons. But after the Introduction, of the new Code this duty has been shifted to the Magistrate concerned and now it is the duty of the Magistrate to supply the copies of the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. as well as the documents collected during investigation on which the prosecution wants to rely during trial, therefore, unless those documents and statements as contemplated under Section 173(5)(a) & (b) of the Cr. P.C. as well as the documents collected during investigation on which the prosecution wants to rely during trial, therefore, unless those documents and statements as contemplated under Section 173(5)(a) & (b) of the Cr. P.C. are forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report if is not possible for the Magistrate to comply with the statutory provision of supplying copies to the accused persons. Therefore, it has no good to interpret Section 173(5) of the Cr. P.C. in a different way out of context and without reference to legislative intention. Accordingly, the point raised by the learned Advocate for the opposite party is not sustainable in law. The interpretation placed by the learned Advocate in this context supported by the decisions as mentioned above is neither reasonable nor correct. 10. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Special Judge in Special Cases No. 1/1989, 2/1989 & 3/1989 are hereby set aside and all the three cases should go back to the learned Special Judge for fresh trial from the stage where it was dropped. All the three matters are disposed of simultaneously by this order.