ORDER S.L Kochar, J. The aforesaid Criminal Revisions are arising out of same impugned order of Court below, hence taken up together and dispose of by this common order. These Criminal Revisions have been filed against the impugned order dated 9-1-2004 passed by learned Special Judge, (Under the Provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore whereby on a complaint filed by the non-applicant Prakash Chandra Jain on 27-1-2003, the learned Special Judge sent the complaint to Respondent No. 2 for investigation and filing of report before the said Court as per provisions u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The non-applicant No. 1 Prakash Chand Jain has alleged in the complaint that the former Chief Minister and the applicants did not take legal steps as per provision of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 for taking possession of the land which was already vested in State Government being excess and deliberately caused benefit to one of the applicant Subhash Gupta a builder being a friend of the then Chief Minister, thereby caused loss about rupees fifteen crores to the State Government and illegal benefit to the builder Subhash Gupta. The complainant/non-applicant No. 1 averred in detail the facts in the complaint and filed several documents. According to him applicants and former Chief Minister have committed offences punishable under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall referred to as "the Act") read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code by hatching conspiracy. This complaint was filed on 27-11-2003 before the learned Special Judge, Indore who kept the complaint on 4-12-2003 for consideration. On 4-12-2003 the Learned Counsel for complainant sought time for recording the statement of complainant, therefore, it was fixed for 9-1-2004. On 9-1-2004 the learned Court below passed the impugned order saying that as per provision u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 he could not take cognizance without prior sanction by competent Authority. Therefore, it would be just and proper to send the complaint as per provision u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation to the police. Thus, he ordered for sending the complaint to Director General, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Bhopal for investigation as per provision u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and kept the case for submission of report on 5-4-2004. This order is under challenge in aforesaid three revisions by four applicants. Thus, he ordered for sending the complaint to Director General, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Bhopal for investigation as per provision u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and kept the case for submission of report on 5-4-2004. This order is under challenge in aforesaid three revisions by four applicants. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Vivek Tankha with Shri Vivek Sharan Advocate, Shri Shekhar Bhargava, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. R. Bhargava and Shri S.K. Vyas, Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants in their respective Criminal Revisions have ardently submitted that the learned Court below passed the impugned order for investigation without application of mind and learned Magistrate could not take cognizance without adequate sanction as per provision u/s 19 of the Act. It has also been submitted that direction to investigate an offence cannot be given liberally and the facts mentioned in the complaint are not in existence and that the order u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code could be passed only by the Magistrate and Special Judge is not a Magistrate. It has also been argued that before registration of FIR against the public servant suitable preliminary inquiry must be done to satisfy whether prima facie material is available for registration of criminal case and in furtherance thereof investigation. The learned Advocates for the applicants placed reliance to bolster their submissions on judgments reported in the cases of P. Sirajuddin, etc. Vs. State of Madras, etc., , Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, , R. Sai Bharati vs. J. Jayalalitha, AIR 2003 SC 6349, P.R. Venugopal vs. S.M. Krishna, Chief Minister of Karnataka of ors., (2003 ) 6 KLJ 507, Dr. G. Laxminarayana vs. Inspector of Police, Hyderabad and another, (1988) 1 Crimes 880, Ram Babu Gupta and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , (FB Allahabad High Court), Guruduth Prabhu and Others Vs. M.S. Krishna Bhat and Others, , Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another, as well as order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2815/2005 dated 24-11-2004, Hemant vs. State of M.P. In oppugnation Learned Counsel for non-applicant/complainant No. 1 Shri M. Dalai and Dy. M.S. Krishna Bhat and Others, , Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another, as well as order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2815/2005 dated 24-11-2004, Hemant vs. State of M.P. In oppugnation Learned Counsel for non-applicant/complainant No. 1 Shri M. Dalai and Dy. A.G. Shri Desai for the State of M.P. have submitted that the complaint was filed on 27-11-2003 and the learned trial Court passed the order that "time would require for going through the complaint and documents filed therewith", therefore, kept the same for consideration on 4-12-2003. On 4-12-2003 Learned Counsel for complainant sought time for examination of complainant, thus the complaint was fixed for 9-1-2004 and on 9-1-2004 the impugned order was passed whereby the learned Special Judge/Addl. District Judge held that as per Section 19 of the Act, 1988 Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code without prior sanction by competent authority, therefore, it would be just and proper to direct the police to investigate into the matter u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Special Judge has also mentioned that for investigation of such kind of offences in Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) and Economic Offences investigation Bureau are established and available, therefore, for investigation it would be appropriate to send the matter to anyone. The learned Court below has also considered that the complainant has arrayed as accused to Chief Secretary, State of M.P., the then Collector, Indore, Former Chief Minister etc., therefore, in such circumstances ordered for investigation of the complaint by police officer of higher rank and directed for sending of the complaint for investigation to Director General of Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) Bhopal as per provision u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and also ordered for filing of the report after investigation, on 5-4-2004. The learned Advocates have submitted that the trial Court has not issued direction for registration of FIR as per provision u/s 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Advocates have submitted that the trial Court has not issued direction for registration of FIR as per provision u/s 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Special Judge has directed the investigation of the complaint by police as per provision u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the contents of the order sheet dated 26-11-2003 are clearly disclosing the fact that the learned Special Judge went through the complete contents of the complaint along with documents filed therewith and after due application of mind passed the order. The same cannot be defined as a cryptic order passed without application of mind and the order is well within the purview of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in case of Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, and that the provision u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised by the Special Judge as Court of original jurisdiction as ruled in case of A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another, , by Hon'ble five Judges Bench of Apex Court and the learned Court below passed the order in conformity with the law laid down by the Bench of three Judges of highest Court of this country regarding use of power u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Magistrate in a complaint case in case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others, . The main thrust of the argument of the Learned Counsel for applicants in all three revisions that while passing the impugned order directing the investigation on the complaint by officers of Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), the learned Special Judge has not effectively applied its mind and passed the order mechanically. The Learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in case of Rambabu Gupta (supra) as well as order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2815/2004. On due consideration, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is clearly reflecting the fact that he had effectively applied his mind. On due consideration, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge is clearly reflecting the fact that he had effectively applied his mind. In the case of Rambabu Gupta (supra) ratio decidendi is that "on receiving a complaint the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the allegations in the complaint and he may not at once proceed to take cognizance and may order it to go to the police station for being registered and investigated. The Magistrate's order must indicate application of mind. If the Magistrate takes cognizance, he proceeds to follow the procedure provided in Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code". Long back in the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another, three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down law relying on R.R. Chari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, that "where a Magistrate has applied his mind only for ordering an investigation u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code or issuing an order for purposes of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence". In this view of the matter, there cannot be two views and it is trite law that for sending the complaint for investigation to police as per provision u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate is obliged to apply his mind. In the instant case, the factual scenario are altogether different than the case of Rambabu Gupta (supra) as well as order passed by this Court in the case of Hemant and another (supra). In case of Rambabu Gupta (supra) several petitions were clubbed and matter was referred to a larger Bench. The reason for the reference was that the Division Bench in case of Surajmal vs. State of U.P., 1993(30) Allahabad Criminal Cases 81 took the view that where an application is moved before the Magistrate requesting only exercise of powers u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code it could not be termed as a complaint within the meaning of Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to adopt the procedure provided under Chapter XV of the Code. Therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to adopt the procedure provided under Chapter XV of the Code. All the petitions the challenge was made to the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the police to investigate the case on application moved by the concerned party u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and limited prayer for order for investigation was made. All those applications were not made as a complaint and no prayer was made to take cognizance as per provision u/s 190 read with Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in all those applications u/s 156(3) more or less the concerned Courts passed the only order i.e. "register and investigate" (see para four). Same was the position in case of Hemant (supra). In this case the application was filed and learned Magistrate passed the order in the marginal space of the complaint directing the police to register the case and after investigation submit the report. Thereafter same was reduced in order sheet. In the case of Rambabu Gupta (supra) as well as Hemant (supra) it was clearly evident that order was not reflecting anything to show that the learned Special Judge applied his mind. In the case in hand things are altogether different. The complaint was filed on 27-11-2003. It was a detailed complaint for the offences u/s 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Special Judge specifically mentioned in the order sheet that "put up the complaint for consideration and further action, as the same will take time to read and to go through the documents filed therewith." Therefore the complaint was ordered to be fixed for consideration on 4-12-2003. These contents of the order sheet are indicative of the fact that right from the date of filing of the complaint the learned Special Judge was cautious and careful and expressed his opinion, before passing any order for going through the contents of the complaint as well as documents filed with the complaint. On 4-12-2003 Learned Counsel for complainant sought time for recording of the statement of the complaint and complaint was fixed on 9-1-2004. On 4-12-2003 Learned Counsel for complainant sought time for recording of the statement of the complaint and complaint was fixed on 9-1-2004. On 9-1-2004 the Learned Counsel for complainant made a prayer before the Court for taking further action in the complaint where upon the learned Special Judge passed the impugned order in which he expressed his opinion that for the offences under P.C. Act as per provision u/s 19 of the Act, without sanction he was not competent to take cognizance, therefore, in such situation it would be just and proper to direct the police to investigate into the matter as per provision u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Special Judge further mentioned in the order that for investigation such kind of offences, Special Police Establishment, Economic Offences Investigation Bureau and the Special Units of M.P. Police are available, therefore, it would be proper to send the complaint for investigation to anyone. He further mentioned in the order that in the complaint, complainant arrayed Chief Secretary of the State, the then Collector Indore and Former Chief Minister, in such circumstances in his opinion it would be proper to get the investigation done by superior police officer, therefore, he ordered for sending the original complaint along with all the documents to the Director, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) Bhopal as per provision u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation and also ordered for keeping one Photostat copy in the Court file and fixed the case for submission of the report after investigation on 5-4-2004. The learned Special Judge has not ordered for registration of the FIR. The order sheet dated 11-2-2004 is disclosing the fact that the learned Special Judge received copy of the FIR as per provision u/s 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding registration of the FIR by Special Police Establishment, Bhopal vide Crime No. 24/2004 under the provisions of Act. It appears that Special Police Establishment registered the FIR as per provision u/s 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code finding that the cognizable offence were disclosed by the complaint. The Apex Court in case of Suresh Jain (supra) in paragraph 10 has specifically ruled as under: Any judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code. The Apex Court in case of Suresh Jain (supra) in paragraph 10 has specifically ruled as under: Any judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer-in-charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter. Suresh Kumar vs. State, (1996)3 Recent Cri. R. 137 (Punjab and Haryana) overruled. It is evident from the contents of the impugned order that the learned Special Judge went through the contents of the complaint, applied his mind and thereafter opined that without proper sanction as per provision u/s 19 of the Act the cognizance for the offence mentioned in the complaint could not be taken by him. He was also of the opinion that looking to the allegations against high Executive Officers and Former Chief Minister, it would be just and proper to send the complaint for investigation along with all the documents filed by the complainant in support thereof to the DGP, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta). It is not a case in which the complainant has filed only application u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed for issuance of direction to police for registration of the FIR and investigation upon which the learned trial Court passed the order in two words i.e. "register the FIR and investigate" as passed in case of Rambabu Gupta and Hemant (supra). Where the concerned Court has applied its mind while passing the order u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing for investigation into the matter is a pure question of fact and for the same no straight jacket formula can be made. In view of the direct judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Suresh Jain (supra), any judicial Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code. If he does so he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. In the instant case also the learned Court below did not take cognizance and passed the order for investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code. The detailed documentation and discussion of the facts are not required to be mentioned in the order by the learned Special Judge and he has assigned the reason for not taking cognizance in absence of proper sanction as per provision u/s 19 of the Act. This shows that he applied his mind and gone through the contents of the complaint as well as documents. This factual position is also strengthened by the initial order dated 27-11-2003 wherein the learned Special Judge has specifically adjourned the case for next date for the purposes of going through the complaint and documents filed therewith. The next facet of the argument of the Learned Counsel for applicants that the Special Judge is not a Magistrate, therefore, cannot pass order u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This controversy is set at rest long back by a unanimous decision of five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in case of A.R. Antulay (supra) and ruled as under in paragraph 27: The Court of a Special Judge is a Court of original criminal jurisdiction. As a Court of original criminal jurisdiction in order to make it functionally oriented some powers were conferred by the statute setting up the Court. Except those specifically conferred and specifically denied, it has to function as a Court of original criminal jurisdiction not being hide-bound by the terminological status description of Magistrate or a Court of Session. Under the Code it will enjoy all powers which a Court or original criminal jurisdiction enjoys save and except the ones specifically denied. Except those specifically conferred and specifically denied, it has to function as a Court of original criminal jurisdiction not being hide-bound by the terminological status description of Magistrate or a Court of Session. Under the Code it will enjoy all powers which a Court or original criminal jurisdiction enjoys save and except the ones specifically denied. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court dicta, the learned Special Judge has power to pass order u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code as a Court of original criminal jurisdiction. His this power is not restrained or specifically denied by any Statute. The Learned Counsel for revisionists have filed several documents along with the revision, which are not the part of complaint case, and wanted this Court to peruse and consider in detail but this Court is afraid of having such jurisdiction to look into any extraneous material than the material available before the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. The extraneous documentary material and facts filed and pleaded by revisionists can be filed and considered at an appropriate stage and certainly not at this stage for Judging the validity and legality of the order of Court below, directing the police to investigate the allegations mentioned in the complaint. The learned Court below/Magistrate is required to considered only contents of the complaint and documents filed by the complainant therewith. It was not the stage for considering defence version or documents, therefore, this Court also cannot look into the defence version and documents filed along with the revision. If defence version and documents are looked into and considered in these revisions by this Court the same would prejudice the case of either side. In case of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, , the Supreme Court took the view that at the stage of framing of charge in a Criminal Case defence version and documents can be entertained and looked into but later on this judgment has been overruled in case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, . In the case in hand the matter is under investigation and applicants have not been called upon by the Court below to face the trial, therefore, their version in revision cannot be considered. The applicants, if so advised, may submit their submissions and documents before the Investigating Authority. Debendra Nath Padhi, . In the case in hand the matter is under investigation and applicants have not been called upon by the Court below to face the trial, therefore, their version in revision cannot be considered. The applicants, if so advised, may submit their submissions and documents before the Investigating Authority. Investigating Agency, after investigation, if find that prima facie case is made out against the applicants they will file the charge-sheet before the Special Court and if according to them no case is made out they will file the final report (khatma report) before the same Court. The further question which crops up for consideration in these revisions is that whether before registration of FIR, the preliminary inquiry was necessary or not in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Learned Counsel for applicants have placed heavy reliance on the case of P. Sirajuddin (supra). In this case, the complaint was addressed to the Minister, Public Works Department by one Rangaswamy Nadar and was received by the Chief Minister of the State. The Chief Minister asked the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption to make confidential enquiries and after receiving confidential enquiry report, the Chief Minister asked the Director Vigilance to pursue the investigation and thereafter charge-sheet was filed. In the facts and circumstances of this case in para 17 Supreme Court has observed as under: In our view the procedure adopted against the Appellant before the laying of the first information report though not in terms forbidden by law, was so unprecedented and outrageous as to shock one's sense of justice and fairplay. No doubt when allegations about dishonesty of a person of the Appellant's rank were brought to the notice of the Chief Minister it was his duty to direct an inquiry into the matter. The Chief Minister in our view pursued the right course. The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court is specifically showing that before lodging of the FIR unprecedented and outrageous actions were taken by the authority against the officers against whom the complaint was made and the matter was sent to the police through department. In this background the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed further in para 17 that before lodging a report against a public servant by his department or superior officer some sort of fact finding inquiry should have been done. In this background the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed further in para 17 that before lodging a report against a public servant by his department or superior officer some sort of fact finding inquiry should have been done. Such is not the situation in the present case. An independent citizen who is not debarred by any law to file a complaint case as per provision u/s 200 read with Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Court of competent jurisdiction and the learned Court below exercised power u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code as discussed hereinabove and Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the Court has jurisdiction to pass the order for investigation u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before taking cognizance of the offence. See cases of Suresh Chand Jain, Devrapally and Nirmaljeetsingh (supra). In this context it would be apposite to reproduce paragraph 58 and part of paragraph 60 of the Supreme Court judgment passed in case of R. Sai Bharathi vs. J. Jaylalitha (supra) as under: Crime is applied to those acts, which are against social order and are worthy of serious condemnation. Garafalo, an eminent criminologist, defined 'crime' in terms of immoral and anti-social acts. He says that "crime is an immoral and harmful act that is regarded as criminal by public opinion because it is an injury to so much of the moral sense as is possessed by a community-measure which is indispensable for the adaptation of the individual to society." The authors of the Indian Penal Code stated that: .. We cannot admit that a Penal Code is by any means to be considered as a body of ethics, that the legislature ought to punish acts merely because those acts are immoral, or that, because an act is not punished at all, it follows that the legislature considers that act as innocent. Many things which are not punishable are morally worse than many things which are punishable. The man who treats a generous benefactor with gross ingratitude and insolence deserves more severe reprehension than the man who aims a blow in passion, or breaks a window in a frolic yet we have punishment; for assault and mischief, and none for ingratitude. Many things which are not punishable are morally worse than many things which are punishable. The man who treats a generous benefactor with gross ingratitude and insolence deserves more severe reprehension than the man who aims a blow in passion, or breaks a window in a frolic yet we have punishment; for assault and mischief, and none for ingratitude. The rich man who refuses a mouthful of rice to save a fellow-creature from death may be a far worse man than the starving wretch who snatches and devours the rice; yet we punish the latter for theft, and we do not punish the former for hard heartedness. (Para 58) Morally speaking, can there be one law for small officials of the Government and another law for the Chief Minister? In matters of such nature, is the Code of Conduct meant only to be kept as an 'ornamental relic' in a museum but not to be practiced? These aspects do worry our conscience. Respondent No. 1 in her anxiety to save her skin went to any length even to deny his signature on documents which her auditor and other Government officials identified. (Para 60) The Learned Counsel for applicants relying on the Supreme Court judgment passed in case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services U.P. (supra) has put forth that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge directing for investigation has caused infringement of the right to live as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. According to them the citizen has a right to live without being haunted by police or CBI. Again this proposition is required to be considered in the fact and circumstances of this very case. In this case Sahangoram had filed number of writ petitions challenging the various actions taken by Department against him and in the said petitions he had made very serious allegations against Minister for Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services in Government of U.P. The Department and Minister submitted their reply, the affidavits denying the allegations of the Petitioner but the High Court proceeded only on the basis of averments made in the petitions without taking into consideration and discussion the reply filed and without expressing its prima facie opinion in regard to the allegations, passed the directions for CBI inquiry. Under these situations the Supreme Court has remanded the case back for rehearing and deciding the matter after considering rival contentions and pleadings. In the instant case, there is no provision for calling upon the non-applicants arrayed as accused in the complaint case before the Court below and there is no legal procedure which obliged the learned trial Court to call the applicants to file the reply, affidavits and thereafter pass the order considering rival contentions by the learned Special Judge. It is also to be noted that even the CBI inquiry in writ petitions are not ordinarily ordered by the High Court unless and until the concerned State is not giving consent and expressing inability to get investigation into the matter by State Agency. It is also to be seen that there is much difference between revisional power of the High Court and power in Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Resultantly, in the wake of foregoing factual and legal discussion, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substance in these revisions for interference by this Court. Therefore, the same are hereby dismissed. In consequence thereof, stay order granted vide order dated 31-3-2004 stands vacated. Original order be retained in Cr. Rev. No. 131/2004 and a copy whereof be placed in the record of connected Cr. Rev. No. 142/2004 and Cr. Rev. No. 143/2004. Final Result : Dismissed