Judgment :- (1) These two applications are being taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this order as the matter is substantially the same. (2) The background of the case is that one public interest litigation was filed before the Honble the Acting Chief Justice and Honble Justice M. H. S. Ansari by the General Secretary, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, Calcutta for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production of one boy, namely, Pinter Yadav who allegedly had been secreted in an unknown place by the respondents of the said petition since his detention in police custody, and a writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate/ enquire into the case against the respondents or any other erring police officials. Pinter Yadav and one Manjit Jadav both under 16 years of age were brought before the O. C, Pradhan Nagar Police Outpost after they were arrested near Tenzing Bus Terminus without complying with the directives issued by the Supreme Court in Dilip Kr. Basu v. State of West Bengal reported in 1997 (1) SCC 416 : (1997 Cri LJ 743) and were subjected to inhuman torture in the police station. Pinter Jadav fell seriously ill. Manjit protested against such inhuman ill-treatment upon Pinter by the officer but he was assaulted and removed to Siliguri police station to be secreted therein. Family members of the two boys searched for them at various places including the police stations at Siliguri and Pradhan Nagar police outpost but it was later found that Manjit was illegally detained in Siliguri Thana Lock up, while whereabouts of Pinter Jadav could not be traced. Allegedly, a dead body supposed to be that of Pinter was cremated after keeping some photographs but his identity could not be established. The Superintendent of Police and the present petitioner Ram Chandra Singh told contradictory stories. The S. P. told that on 5th May, 1999 two boys were brought in front of Pradhan Nagar outpost by one Pritam Debnath and other members of the public from nearby bus station. The Superintendent of Police and the present petitioner Ram Chandra Singh told contradictory stories. The S. P. told that on 5th May, 1999 two boys were brought in front of Pradhan Nagar outpost by one Pritam Debnath and other members of the public from nearby bus station. On suspicion of being lifter one of the two boys who was elder was sent to Sub-divisional Hospital, Siliguri as he was found sweating, while the younger boy was taken to Siliguri police station who disclosed his name as Tinkoo Jadav Later the boy was taken out by his mother from Siliguri P. S. As against this, the version of the present petitioner and the officer in-charge of the police outpost at Pradhan Nagar was that none of the boys were at all arrested in Pradhan Nagar Outpost; on the contrary, considering the illness of the elder boy he was transferred to Siliguri hospital for treatment while another boy was made over to Siliguri police station and due to absence of disclosure of the identity of the two boys no step could be taken for informing the guardian of the boys. Before the Honble Court Manjit and the mother of Pinter were produced and they were shown the two photographs of a dead body bearing signs of injury. The mother of Pinter said that said photographs were not of her son. The age of the deceased was shown as 32 but later changed to 18. What happened to Pinter remained a mystery. The police authorities did not make any serious attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of the minor boy. The Honble Court held that if the story told by the Superintendent of Police was correct, then the boys committed offence in which case they could have been arrested and first information report lodged, but even no general diary was recorded. The Honble Court observed that the conduct of the police officers of the district was such that it did not inspile. Their Lordships confidence. The police authorities went to the extent of threatening the family members of victim. The post mortem report appears to have been interpolated and the fact is that a second opinion was obtained by the Dy. Superintendent of Police to show that post mortem report was not wholly reliable. Their Lordships confidence. The police authorities went to the extent of threatening the family members of victim. The post mortem report appears to have been interpolated and the fact is that a second opinion was obtained by the Dy. Superintendent of Police to show that post mortem report was not wholly reliable. Accordingly, by the 17 page judgment the Honble Court directed that the investigation into the matter be carried out by the CBI. This order was passed on 23rd September, 1999. Then CBI took up the investigation of the case. (3) Now CBI have their own Manual and in terms of Manual before registering a case they conduct a preliminary enquiry. The purpose of conducting a preliminary enquiry is, as I find from the extract of the Manual, that sometimes registration of a case on the basis of information becomes not justified which is why a preliminary enquiry is undertaken and upon finding out that an offence has been committed a regular case is registered. It has been observed in the manual that a preliminary enquiry may be converted into a regular case as soon as sufficient materials becomes available to show that prima facie there has been commission of a cognizable offence. In this case a preliminary enquiry was conducted, and then a regular case was registered which followed investigation which in turn culminated into the submission of charge sheet against the present petitioner and one Pradyut Chandra Das under Sections 304 (11)/330/341 and under Sections 343 and 323, IPC respectively. Investigation revealed the following : - "The investigation has revealed that Pinter Yadav, aged about 15-16 years and Manjit Gowala aged about 9-10 years had left their houses on 5-5-1999 for witnessing a movie in Siliguri. At about 1100 hrs. they were apprehended by the public at Siliguri Bus stand on allegation of theft. One Pritam Debnath of Bus Operators Association brought them to Pradhan Nagar Outpost. The boys walked along with Pritam Debnath without any problem and they were physically all right. They were produced before Sub-Inspector Karma Lama of Pradhan Nagar Outpost. Sub-Inspector Ram Chandra Singh (A. 1) Officer in-charge of Pradhan Nagar Outpost arrived after a short while and he assaulted the elder boy Pinter Yadav with lathi and also kicked and slapped him in order to extract some confession from Pinter Yadav. They were produced before Sub-Inspector Karma Lama of Pradhan Nagar Outpost. Sub-Inspector Ram Chandra Singh (A. 1) Officer in-charge of Pradhan Nagar Outpost arrived after a short while and he assaulted the elder boy Pinter Yadav with lathi and also kicked and slapped him in order to extract some confession from Pinter Yadav. Pinter Yadav suddenly became ill due to such beating and vomited blood. When the condition of Pinter Yadav became serious Ram Chandra Singh (A. 1) sought instruction from Inspector Pradyut Chandra Das under whose jurisdiction Pradhan Nagar Outpost falls. SI Ram Chandra Singh (A.1) took Pinter Yadav out of the Outpost and crossed the road asked one auto driver Abhijit Ghosh @ Asit Ghosh to take the boy to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Siliguri. He also asked a cobbler Ashok Chowdhury, Basuram who used to sit in front of the Outpost to assist Ajit Ghosh. SI Ram Chandra Singh (A.1) also called two rickshaw pullers Raju Roy and Bimal Bose and told them to take the boy to the Hospital. In the Hospital they told the Hospital staff that the patient was sent by the Incharge of Pradhan Nagar Outpost and he was admitted in the Hospital vide Head Ticket No. 7182 as Hindu male of age as 32 years. According to the Hospital staff they mentioned the age as 32 years as told by the person who brought Pinter Yadav to Hospital. The boy died on 6-5-1999 at about 0945 hours. On the information of Ward Master Nemai Mondal of Siliguri Sub Division Hospital, UD Case No. 127/99 was registered at Siliguri P. S. and ASI P. C. Dutta enquired into UD case. The ASI conducted the inquest and mentioned the age as 18- 19 years. Thereafter, post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body and it was preserved for 7 days for identification. However, sufficient publicity was not given regarding the death of Pinter Yadav by the police officials and as a result the relatives of Pinter Yadav remained in dark regarding his death. When nobody came forward to identify the dead body it was buried by Hospital authority in the mass burial ground. However, sufficient publicity was not given regarding the death of Pinter Yadav by the police officials and as a result the relatives of Pinter Yadav remained in dark regarding his death. When nobody came forward to identify the dead body it was buried by Hospital authority in the mass burial ground. (4) During investigation the photograph of the dead body was identified by the staff of Pradhan Nagar Outpost as that of the elder boy who was brought to Pradhan Nagar Outpost on 5-5-1999 by Pritam Debnath and who was severely beaten up by Ram Chandra Singh (A-1). The youngest boy Manjit Gowala also identified the photograph of the dead body as that of Pinter Yadav. The other relatives of Pinter Yadav including his mother have also identified the photograph of dead body as that of Pinter Yadav. Postmortem on the dead body was conducted in North Bengal Medical College Hospital, Siliguri and the autopsy surgeon opined inter alia that the deceased died due to rupture of Hydatid Cyst on account of rupture of liver caused by sudden bursting of Hydatid cyst. The doctor also opined that the age of the person to be around 18-19 years. During investigation the opinion of the forensic and medical expert was obtained. (5) Thus the investigation has established that Ram Chandra Singh (A-1) wrongfully detained Pinter Yadav and Manjit Gowala in Pradhan Nagar Outpost on 5-5-1999. He also severely assaulted Pinter Yadav who vomited blood and became sick due to such beating. Even after this Ram Chandra Singh (A-1) officer in-charge of Pradhan Nagar Outpost did not bother to send Police escort to take Pinter Yadav to the Hospital. He asked civilians to take Pinter Yadav to S. D. Hospital, Siliguri. Pinter Yadav died in the Hospital on 6-5-1999 due to rupture of Hydatid cyst which was caused by beating of Ram Chandra Singh (A-1). No General Diary entry was made by the accused Ram Chandra Singh (A-1) or by anybody else of Pradhan Nagar Outpost regarding the detention of Pinter Yadav and Manjit Gowala in the Pradhan Nagar Outpost on 5-5-1999. No General Diary entry was made by the accused Ram Chandra Singh (A-1) or by anybody else of Pradhan Nagar Outpost regarding the detention of Pinter Yadav and Manjit Gowala in the Pradhan Nagar Outpost on 5-5-1999. (6) Investigation has further established that the younger boy Manjit Gowala who was shifted to Siliguri P. S. on 5-5-1999 by Ram Chandra Singh (A-l) on the instruction of Pradyut Chandra Das (A-2) Inspector-in-charge of Siliguri P. S. was illegally detained there till 11-5-1999 by Inspector Pradyut Chandra Das (A-2) IC Siliguri P. S. On 11-5-1999 mother of Manjit Gowala with the help of Sri Nripen Das, Sri Upen Das and Subrata Kundu got him released from Siliguri P. S. Pradyut Chandra Das (A-2) IC Siliguri P. S. did not make any entry into the police station General Diary nor did he instruct any of his subordinate officers to make such General diary entry regarding the detention of Manjit Gowala at Siliguri P. S. The wrongful confinement of Manjit Gowala by A-2 Pradyut Chandra Das at Siliguri P. S. for a long period from 5-5-1999 to 11-5-1999 caused hurt to the said Manjit Gowala. (7) Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Siliguri to whom the case was committed to the Sessions being Sessions Case No. 62(S)2006 that arose out of the R. C. Case No. 38 of 2001 dated 30th October, 2001 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 320 of 2004, a petition was filed by the petitioner praying for supply of copy of a report of preliminary enquiry which was conducted by the CBI in terms of their Manual. The learned Judge upon hearing the petitioner and the CBI passed an order on 2nd August, 2007 to the effect when an FIR was registered under Section 154 of the Cr. P. C. on the basis of a preliminary enquiry which is not the part of the 173 Cr. P. C. papers and which the prosecution does not rely on because of the FIR being reproduction of the report of preliminary enquiry is meaningless. This order of learned Sessions Judge dated 2nd August, 2007 has been challenged in CRR No. 3493 of 2007. P. C. papers and which the prosecution does not rely on because of the FIR being reproduction of the report of preliminary enquiry is meaningless. This order of learned Sessions Judge dated 2nd August, 2007 has been challenged in CRR No. 3493 of 2007. (8) In the same case, after passing of the order on 2nd August, 2007, the learned Judge proceeded to hearing on consideration of charge and by a lengthy order dated 27th January, 2009 held that there were prima facie materials to frame charge against the petitioner. This order dated 27th January, 2009 has also been challenged by the petitioner in a separate application being C. R. No. 430 of 2009 where the same ground has been agitated, namely, copy of the preliminary enquiry report was not supplied to the defence and the petitioner will not be in a position to defend the case unless the report of the preliminary enquiry was made over to the defence, in fact, this is the ground which was the ground in the earlier revisional application. (9) Mr. Milon Mukherjee learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the report of preliminary enquiry is a part of the documents of the prosecution and the defence would be prejudiced if a copy of the report of such preliminary enquiry is not produced. Supply of a copy of preliminary enquiry is necessary to examine whether any contradictory stand has been taken by the CBI in the preliminary enquiry report. My attention has been drawn to a decision reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 406 : (2007 Cri LJ 995) (Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others). (10) Mr. Ranjan Kumar Roy, learned advocate appearing for the CBI submitted that the petitioner has unnecessarily been dragging the case having failed to see that his desire will lead him to no fruitful destination, because the CBIs preliminary enquiry is the enquiry of the CBI, it being the internal matter and only when preliminary enquiry proved a cognizable offence a formal case is registered on the basis of the enquiry and virtually the report of preliminary enquiry is converted into an FIR which is normally the practice. It is the FIR under Section 154 Cr. P. C. that leads the CBI to investigate into the offence under the Cr. It is the FIR under Section 154 Cr. P. C. that leads the CBI to investigate into the offence under the Cr. P. C. and when Investigation is concluded and a case is made out prima facie a charge sheet is submitted. Therefore, it is silly, nay ludicrous to argue for supply of the copy of report of preliminary enquiry. (11) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties I fail to find out any point in any of the revisional applications. Sometimes an anonymous complaint is made against a public authority and to test the veracity of the complaint, a preliminary enquiry is conducted into the matter and when preliminary enquiry establishes the genuineness of the complaint then an FIR is registered under Section 154 of the Cr. P. C. When an FIR is registered the criminal ball is set into the motion and then investigation is carried out under Section 167 of the Cr. P. C. on the FIR, and investigation may either culminate into charge sheet or a final report praying for termination of the prosecution. When a charge sheet is submitted, the accused gets copy of the FIR and all documents under Section 173 of the Cr. P. C. accompanying the charge sheet on the basis of which the prosecution intends to prosecute the accused. The report of preliminary enquiry is not a legal term within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. For the CBI there is no other separate Code of Criminal Procedure. Sometimes CBI instead of registering a case may choose to departmentally proceed against a delinquent servant. Now in Shashikant (2007 Cri LJ 995) (supra) what we find is that an anonymous complaint was lodged against the appellant. CBI conducted a preliminary enquiry, the Investigating Officer was of the opinion that it was not necessary to register an FIR and it recommended for holding a departmental proceeding against the officers concerned and this recommendation found favour with the higher officers and further the instruction of the Central Vigilance Commission was also obtained. The question was whether it was obligatory on the part of the CBI in that case to lodge an FIR and carry out a full fledged investigation about the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the said anonymous complaint. The question was whether it was obligatory on the part of the CBI in that case to lodge an FIR and carry out a full fledged investigation about the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the said anonymous complaint. Their Lordships held that when a anonymous complaint is received no investigating officer would initiate investigating process immediately thereupon and it may for good reasons carry out a preliminary enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained therein; but registration of a case is sine qua non for starting investigation. Thus a distinction is made between a preliminary enquiry proceeding, the registration of an FIR and regular case initiated through an FIR and it was held that a preliminary enquiry in terms of paragraph 9.1 of the CBI Manual may be converted into a regular case as soon as sufficient material becomes available to show prima facie that there has been commission of a cognizable offence. This decision thus in no way become applicable to the present case. It is a case where preliminary enquiry has been converted into R. C. under the aforesaid Sections of the law. The accused has no right to demand a copy of the report of preliminary enquiry. (12) The other decision in Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Administration and Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 571 : (2008 Cri LJ 356) is to the same effect. (13) Thus, under Section 207 of the Cr. P. C. the defence has been supplied with the FIR of the regular case, charge sheet and all documents that accompanied the charge sheet. Accordingly the desire of the petitioner to have copy of the report of the preliminary enquiry does not stand to reason. (14) Learned trial Court by order dated 2nd August, 2007, upon hearing the parties recorded that a prima facie case has been made out so as to frame charge; prayer for discharge of the accused has been rejected. Having gone through the order, I find no justification to interfere with the same because the materials disclosed a clear prima facie case against the petitioner and another. (15) The two revisional applications are absolutely devoid of merit. (16) Accordingly, the order dated 2nd August, 2007 and the order dated 27th January, 2007 passed by the learned Judge in the Court below are confirmed. (17) The applications are dismissed. (15) The two revisional applications are absolutely devoid of merit. (16) Accordingly, the order dated 2nd August, 2007 and the order dated 27th January, 2007 passed by the learned Judge in the Court below are confirmed. (17) The applications are dismissed. (18) A copy of this judgment will be sent to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Siliguri for information and necessary action. (19) Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Applications dismissed.