Judgment (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : “a. for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to carry out and conduct a fair, proper and wholesome investigation into the offences registered vide Crime No.113/2009 of the Pernem Police Station, and thereafter to file a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within 3 months, and to take all such other action as law mandates in that regard, or, b. In the alternative for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent No.1 to transfer the investigation into the matter to the CID-Crime Branch, or any such other independent investigating agency, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit; c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of Criminal Miscellaneous Application 54/2011 & 66/2011 from the Court of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Pernem, Goa ” 4. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is, as follows : On 5th May, 2011, the petitioners lodged a report at the Pernem Police Station, alleging commission of various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, by several persons in relation to a loan granted to Durga English High School, at Parsem, Pernem, Goa under infrastructure development. According to the petitioners, though a loan of Rs.36,00,000/-(Rupees thirty six lakhs only) was granted, an amount of Rs.21,00,000/-(Rupees twenty one lakhs only) was misappropriated by several persons named in the said report. By a communication dated 9th May, 2011, Officer Incharge of Pernem Police Station informed the petitioners that crime vide Pernem Police Station FIR No.113/2009 dated 24.7.2009 was already registered against one Ramnath Mahadev Sawant, and others for misappropriation of Government funds upon the report lodged by Shri Y.P. Dhore, Asstt. Director of Education, North Education Zone, Mapusa, Goa and the same was being investigated by PSI Shri S.S. Narvekar of Pernem Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Criminal Misc Application No. 54/2011 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Pernem against the Police Inspector, Pernem Police Station, and the Superintendent of Police (North) seeking reliefs, inter alia, that a fair and reasonable investigation be carried out. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Criminal Misc Application No. 54/2011 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Pernem against the Police Inspector, Pernem Police Station, and the Superintendent of Police (North) seeking reliefs, inter alia, that a fair and reasonable investigation be carried out. It appears that no order has been passed on the said application and the proceedings are still pending before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, on 30th May, 2012, the petitioners have filed the present petition, seeking for the reliefs as mentioned in paragraph 3 hereinabove. 5. On 9th July, 2012, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Pubic Prosecutor, and finding that the investigation was not progressing in right direction, we directed the Director General of Police, State of Goa to file an affidavit giving details about certain aspects of the investigation, within a period of two weeks. In compliance with the said order, an affidavit was filed by the Inspector General of Police wherein it was represented that at the relevant period, the post of the Director General of Police was vacant and the charge was not given to any other officer. 6. On 6th August, 2012, it was noticed that the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police was not in full compliance with the order dated 9th July, 2012 and, therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor sought time to file further affidavit, which was granted. Accordingly, a further affidavit was filed on 16/8/2012. Since the said affidavit was also not in compliance with the order dated 9th July, 2012, we directed to file a further affidavit, which has been filed today. 7. The main grievance made by the petitioners in the petition is that the investigation in Crime No.113/2009 has not been carried out properly and diligently and, therefore, this is a fit case in which the investigation deserves to be handed over either to CID Crime Branch or any other agency. 8. A perusal of the affidavits filed by the Inspector General of Police, in terms of order dated 9.7.2012, discloses a very sorry state of affairs. Although FIR was registered on 24.7.2009, no steps for proper investigation were taken by PSI Shri Ajit R. Umarye, at the relevant time, except for recording the FIR in terms of the report lodged by Shri Y. P. Dhore, Asstt. Although FIR was registered on 24.7.2009, no steps for proper investigation were taken by PSI Shri Ajit R. Umarye, at the relevant time, except for recording the FIR in terms of the report lodged by Shri Y. P. Dhore, Asstt. Director of Education, North Education Zone, Mapusa and collecting attested copies of some documents. Perusal of the three affidavits filed by the Inspector General of Police discloses that out of five Investigating Officers who were investigating from 24.7.2009 i.e. the date of registration of FIR, till date departmental action has been taken against PSI Sachin Narvekar since he had not carried out any investigation during the period from 9.9.2010 to 30.7.2011. A minor penalty of Censure has been imposed on him. Similarly, in so far as PI Uttam Y. Raut Dessai, who was supervising the investigation is concerned, the same penalty has been imposed on him. In so far as PI Shri C.L. Patil and PI Shri Tushar G. Lotlikar who were the Investigating Officers for the period 26.12.2011 to 18.4.2012 and 18.4.2012 till date are concerned, no action has been taken, since according to IGP, there is no lapse on their part. 9. More than a half century ago, the Apex Court in the case of H.N. Rishbud and another vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 , has defined what is 'investigation'. The Apex Court has held that the investigation generally consists of the following steps:- (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial, and (5) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173. It appears that almost all the investigating officers in the present case are unaware as to what is the real meaning of investigation. It appears that almost all the investigating officers in the present case are unaware as to what is the real meaning of investigation. Mere recording of an FIR or collecting of some stray documents, would not amount to investigation of the crime as defined by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. 10. In the present case, the allegation was that several persons had misappropriated an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-which was given to the School for infrastructure development i.e. construction of building, repairs, etc.. It was, therefore, obligatory for the Investigating Officer to conduct a panchanama forthwith to ascertain whether the allegations made in the report were correct or not. In the present case, the panchanama of the scene of offence has been conducted on 26th March, 2012 though FIR was registered on 24th July, 2009. Therefore, it is evident that PSI Shri Ajit Umarye who was the Investigating Officer for a period of almost 14 months did not bother to carry out any real investigation and, yet, the higher Officers are of the opinion that he has not committed any dereliction of the duty. The Senior Officers from the Police Department are expected to supervise the investigation in a crime in order to ensure that the investigation is proceeding on the right lines. 11. In the instant case, a bare perusal of the affidavits filed by the Inspector General of Police discloses that the Senior Officers who were supposed to supervise the investigation have also not discharged their duties as required. It is really unfortunate that a serious crime punishable under Section 406, read with 34 of IPC has not been investigated in the right spirit, for the reasons best known to the investigation officers and the Senior Officers who are supposed to supervise the investigation. 12. One of the affidavits filed by the Inspector General of Police also discloses that out of eight accused named in the FIR, only two accused have been arrested. They were arrested on 4.8.2012 and were released on bail by the Magistrate on 7.8.2012. One of the accused had sought anticipatory bail and was granted anticipatory bail on 23.8.2012. He was formally arrested on 29.8.2012. We are informed that the said accused had filed an anticipatory bail application in March, 2012. They were arrested on 4.8.2012 and were released on bail by the Magistrate on 7.8.2012. One of the accused had sought anticipatory bail and was granted anticipatory bail on 23.8.2012. He was formally arrested on 29.8.2012. We are informed that the said accused had filed an anticipatory bail application in March, 2012. What emerges from the above facts, is that the Investigating Officers investigating this crime from July, 2009 till March, 2012, did not think it necessary to arrest any of the accused and it is only when one of the accused filed an anticipatory bail, that the prosecution chose to oppose the application, which was ultimately granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji. It is also pertinent to note that one of the affidavits of the Inspector General of Police discloses that three contractors whose names were not mentioned in the FIR, were also arrested on 19.6.2012 and released on Bail on 20.6.2012 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Pernem. 13. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the accused who has been granted anticipatory bail is the main accused in the above crime. If that be so, we fail to understand as to why the prosecution had to wait till March, 2012 for the said accused to file an anticipatory bail and chose not to arrest him if his arrest was warranted. No doubt it is the discretion of the investigating officer whether to arrest the accused or not, in a crime registered against him and the said discretion has to be exercised in terms of the settled principles governing the arrest of an accused in a cognizable and non bailable offence as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, (1994) 4 SCC 260 . 14. Since the prosecution had opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to one of the accused and had arrested two accused only in the year 2012, the necessary sequitur is that the prosecution had sufficient material against the said three accused and the prosecution wanted custodial interrogation of the said three accused. But, for the reasons best known to the investigation officers they chose not to arrest the accused for a period of more than 2½ years. But, for the reasons best known to the investigation officers they chose not to arrest the accused for a period of more than 2½ years. This, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a fair and impartial investigation, which is expected in a case where an FIR is registered at the Police Station. It is also pertinent to note that two of the accused were arrested on 4.8.2012, and that too after it was noticed by us in the course of hearing of the petition on 9.7.2012 that the investigation was not proceeding in the right direction. 15. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the arrest of the two accused is nothing but, an attempt by the Police Department to avoid from this Court any order regarding lethargic investigation carried out in the crime. This approach on the part of the respondents cannot be countenanced. 16. In the present case, from the material on record, and particularly, the affidavits filed by the Inspector General of Police, we are satisfied that till we took cognizance of the lethargic investigation carried out by different Investigating Officers, investigation was not being carried out in the right direction by the different Investigating Officers who were bound to carry out the investigation in right earnest. It is axiomatic that the investigation of a crime pursuant to an FIR registered at a particular Police Station, is the prerogative of the officer incharge of the Police Station or the police officer to whom the investigation is entrusted, but at the same time, the Investigating Officer to whom the investigation is assigned ought to bear in mind that he is discharging public duty not only qua the first informant, but the entire society. The Investigating Officer investigating a crime, is not entitled to investigate the crime as per his whims and fancies, but has to investigate the crime in accordance with the settled principles governing the investigation of a crime. No doubt the manner and method of investigation may vary from case to case, depending upon the nature of the crime involved. However, the fact remains that the Investigating Officer has to carry out the investigation with promptness and with due diligence and undue delay in carrying out the investigation may, ultimately, result in disappearance of valuable and material piece of evidence which may not be available after a considerable period of time. However, the fact remains that the Investigating Officer has to carry out the investigation with promptness and with due diligence and undue delay in carrying out the investigation may, ultimately, result in disappearance of valuable and material piece of evidence which may not be available after a considerable period of time. Majority of the Investigating Officers in the present case seem to be unaware of the above principles and, we hope and trust that the higher officers in the Police Department of Goa take serious note of such lapses on the part of Investigating Officers, not only in respect of the present crime, but also in respect of all other crimes which are being investigated by different Police Stations in the State of Goa. We are constrained to make this observation inasmuch as in a number of matters before us it has come to our notice that the investigation is not being carried out diligently but on the contrary the same is being carried out in a superficial manner. 17. We do not want to say anything more in the present case, inasmuch as the same may have an adverse effect either on the prosecution case or on the rights of the accused. But, we are constrained to make the above observations in discharge of our constitutional obligations, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When it is brought to our notice that the investigation in the crime is not proceeding on the right lines, either on account of ignorance, negligence, or on account of dishonesty on the part of the Investigating Officers, it is our duty to issue appropriate directions, so that the investigation is carried out in the right direction. 17. Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor at the end of the arguments, submitted that he has been instructed by the Inspector General of Police that the investigation in the present case would be handed over to the Crime Branch and the same shall be carried out by Shri Nilu Raut Dessai, Dy. Superintendent of Police attached to the Crime Branch and that the investigation would be carried out in right direction and shall be completed within a period of three months from today. We accept the statement made by learned Public Prosecutor. 18. Superintendent of Police attached to the Crime Branch and that the investigation would be carried out in right direction and shall be completed within a period of three months from today. We accept the statement made by learned Public Prosecutor. 18. A copy of this Judgment be sent to the Inspector General of Police, Goa, so that he takes appropriate action as he deems fit and proper not only in relation to the crime in question but also other serious crimes which are under investigation. 19. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.