JUDGMENT This is a case of Criminal Revision filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. with the prayer for quashing the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 486 of 1995 arising out of Chinsurah P.S. Case No. 107 of 1995 dated 18.4.95 under Sections 147/148/448/323/341/354/427/436/506 and 120B I.P.C. and also for quashing the orders dated 10.1.96 and 23.5.96 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly Sadar, inter alia, on the grounds that taking cognizance by the Magistrate on the basis of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr P.C. not accompanied by the statements and documents is bad in law. 2. Subsequently, in a case where investigation has been directed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr P.C., such investigation must be done by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station and there is no power of delegation for investigation to any Subordinate Officer and that if for the sake of argument such delegation of power is accepted even then under Section 168 Cr. P.C., the Officer investigating the offence cannot submit a report under Section 173(2) Cr P.C. to the Magistrate, but such Investigating Officer shall submit the result of such investigation to the O.C. of the Police Station and the O.C. being satisfied about the commission of an offence, prima facie, shall himself submit the report to the Magistrate. Mere endorsement by the O.C. on the report prepared by the Investigating Officer to the effect forwarded to the Magistrate is not a compliance with the legal provision. 3. Thirdly, it is also contended that such a report must be submitted to the Magistrate who directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. and not to any other Magistrate. 4. After giving due consideration to the submission made by the learned Senior Advocate-Mr. Bose appearing for the petitioners and also the argument placed by the Additional Public Prosecutor-Mr. Maitra, the Court passes the following order :- So far the first ground is concerned. P.C. and not to any other Magistrate. 4. After giving due consideration to the submission made by the learned Senior Advocate-Mr. Bose appearing for the petitioners and also the argument placed by the Additional Public Prosecutor-Mr. Maitra, the Court passes the following order :- So far the first ground is concerned. I am not ready to accept the argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioners in view of the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 173 Cr P.C. which requires that all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation, and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr P.C. of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, shall be forwarded to the Magistrate along with the report. As such those documents and statements cannot be part of the report. The expression ‘along with the report’ makes it clear that those documents and statements are annexures to the ‘report’ as contemplated under Section 173(2) Cr P.C. Therefore, sending of the documents and statements along with the report should not be treated as a mandatory provision. Those documents and statements, in my considered view, may be forwarded later on. The legislative intention covered by Section 173(5) of the Cr P.C. is to send those documents and statements to the Magistrate simply for preparation of copies and for supplying the same to the accused persons. This duty was on the police under the old Code. Under the new Code, this duty has been cast on the Magistrate. Therefore, it is necessary to send the documents and statements to the Magistrate concerned. Moreover, the words ‘along with the report’ leaves no scope for doubt that the report here means the report as contemplated under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. and that sub-section is very elaborate to indicate what particular such report should contain. Accordingly, non-sending of documents and statements along with the police report as contemplated under Section 173(2) cannot vitiate the police report or the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance on such report. 5. Regarding the second ground, I have no hesitation to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners partly. Accordingly, non-sending of documents and statements along with the police report as contemplated under Section 173(2) cannot vitiate the police report or the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance on such report. 5. Regarding the second ground, I have no hesitation to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners partly. It is true that when the Office-in-Charge of a Police Station has reasons to suspect the commission of an offence, he is empowered to take up investigation under Section 156(1) Cr P.C. and in such case the law is clear that the O.C. of a Police Station can himself investigate or delegate the power investigation to any other Subordinate Officer competent to investigate under the Code. But when a Magistrate forwards a petition of complaint to the O.C. of a Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Cr P.C. such option is not there with the O.C. of the Police Station. He has got no other alternative but to treat that complaint as an F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr P.C. and to initiate investigation as contemplated under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. Language used in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. make it clear that “any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr P.C. may order such an investigation as above mentioned”. The expression ‘such an investigation as above mentioned’ leaves no scope for doubt that the reference is to the provision contained in Section 156(1) Cr P.C. Thus, direction for investigation event under Section 156(3) Cr P.C. is also covered by Section 156(1) Cr P.C. and the provisions and power contained in sub-section (1) shall be application in the matter of investigation. Because, there is no alternative provision for investigation in respect of the cases directed by a Magistrate to be investigated by the police under Section 156(3) Cr P.C. Therefore, the only provision for initially investigation by an Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station is limited to the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 156 Cr P.C. Accordingly, the power of delegation to a Subordinate Officer by the O.C. for investigation is also attracted to such a case which has been started under the direction of the Magistrate. 6. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners had further submitted, the even if for argument’s sake such power of delegation is accepted, the Investigating Officer under Section 168 Cr P.C. is to submit the result of the investigation to the O.C. of the Police Station and such Investigating Officer cannot directly send the report of investigation to the Magistrate. It is submitted further that the O.C. of a Police Station on receipt of such result of investigation from the Investigating Officer shall prepare the report as contemplated under Section 173(2) Cr P.C. himself and forward the same to the Magistrate. Such interpretation of Section 168 Cr P.C. depends on the interpretation of the words ‘result of investigation’. As I understand the ‘result of investigation’ is not merely the materials and evidence collected during investigation but it also covers the opinion of the Investigating Officer. The materials collected during Investigation is covered by the process of Investigating Officer. Thereafter, it leaves no scope for doubt that the report of the investigating Officer shall contain not only the materials, such as documents seized, witnesses examined i.e. the evidence, in short, but also the offence constituted by those materials collected during the process of Investigation. Naturally, such a report appears to be identical to the report contemplated by Section 173(2) Cr P.C. and the concluding opinion of the Investigating Officer regarding the constituted offences is the result of such investigation. It is true that such result must be places before the O.C. of a Police Station for his opinion as required by Section 168 Cr P.C. and the O.C. on perusal of such ‘result of Investigation’ forwards that report under Section 173(2) Cr P.C. to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance, with the endorsement ‘forwarded’ under this signature, that should be treated as compliance with the provision of Section 173(2) Cr P.C. In (1) H.N. Rishbud’s case reported in AIR 1995 SC 196 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the meaning of investigation and the fifth requirement for investigation according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the formation of the opinion as to whether on the materials collected, there is a case to place the accused persons before the Magistrate for trial. Now, it is submitted that this opinion must be formed by the O.C. of a Police Station. Now, it is submitted that this opinion must be formed by the O.C. of a Police Station. Now, when the O.C. of a Police Station puts the endorsement on the police report ‘forwarded’ under his signature it indicates that he has concurred with the result of Investigation as submitted by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the materials collected during the process of investigation. There is no reason to think that it was a mechanical act on the part of the O.C. to put the endorsement ‘forwarded’. Rather the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act should be that the official act of forwarding of the report by the O.C. has been done according to the requirement of the Statues officially. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the O.C. of the Police Station has not applied his mind to the materials placed before him before forwarding the report to the Magistrate under his signature. In short, the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court still hold good and lends support to the above findings. 7. If for the sake of argument, a worst case for example is taken up that the Investigating Officer without such endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge forwarded the charge-sheet directly to the Magistrate even then such act shall not vitiate the police report or the act of taking cognizance by the Magistrate on such report or even an order of conviction on the conclusion of trial on the basis of such report. It is an irregularity which is curable under Section 465(xvi) Cr P.C. The view has also been taken by the Calcutta High Court in its earlier decision in (2) Tarab v. State, 1978 Cr L.J. (NOC) at page 87 Calcutta and also in (3) Sheeyert v. State of Bihar, 1997 Cr. L.J. at page 1597, Patna. 8. The next point of argument is that the report under Section 173(2) Cr P.C. must be forwarded to the Magistrate who directed the investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr P.C. But on reading the provision of Section 173(2) Cr P.C. I do not find any such limitation. The report should be forwarded to the Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance. The report should be forwarded to the Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance. The decision referred to me reported in (4) AIR 1918 Calcutta 50, does not hold good, in my opinion, as it goes against the statutory provision contained in Section 465 (525-old) (xvi) Cr.P.C. Thus, after careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for the accused-petitioners, I do not find, any reasonable force in the arguments and as such I am not inclined to accept the argument as advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioners; as such it is held, that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.1.96 and 23.5.96 passed in Chinsurah Police Station Case No. 107/1995 dated 18.4.95. There is no reasonable justification to quash those two impugned order in exercised of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The Revision Case, accordingly, is dismissed on contest.