The accused in the Special Case No. 2094 of 2007 under Section 420/ 471 IPC, in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Assam has filed this revision application challenging the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby, the learned Magistrate has rejected the prayer of the accused to set aside the charge sheet on the ground that the investigation was carried out by an incompetent officer. 2. Heard Mr. J Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AC Buragohain, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. I have also perused the impugned order, FIR, Charge sheet and other documents annexed with the revision application. 3. On the basis of certain informations, the CBI, ACB, Guwahati registered a case under various provision of IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against two persons namely, Sri TN Bhutia and the petitioner Sri Tarun Chandra Goswami. 4. The prosecution case is that after the termination of Sri Tarun Chandra Goswami from Donyi Polo Mission, Itanagar, the petitioner in conspiracy with Sri TN Bhutia, Assistant Provident Commissioner had manipulated the date of birth so that the petitioner can get pension. As per the FIR, the date of birth was manipulated from 1.3.1958 to 01.03.1949 to show that he had completed 50 years of age and on the basis of manipulated records, he has drawn certain retiral benefits and also pension of Rs. 476/- was sanctioned to him in the year 2000. 5. The case was registered by the Superintendent of Police and the case was endorsed to one Sri Jayanta Paul, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB. Since the law required taking of permission from a Magistrate under Section 17 of the PC Act., the Investigating officer submitted a petition before the learned Special Judge, CBI on 3.3.2006, whereupon the learned Special Judge authorised the Sub-Inspector to investigate the case. Pursuant to the said authority, the Sub-Inspector of police investigated the case and submitted the Final Report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 only under Section 420/471 of the IPC. In other words, the petitioner was not charge sheeted under the panel provisions of the PC Act. 6. Since the panel provision under the PC Act were not included in the charge sheet, the case was filed in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Assam. In other words, the petitioner was not charge sheeted under the panel provisions of the PC Act. 6. Since the panel provision under the PC Act were not included in the charge sheet, the case was filed in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Assam. On receipt of the process, the accused appeared and filed a petition on 24.3.2008 taking a plea that the investigation was defective and as such, the charge sheet should be quashed. However, this prayer did not find favour of the learned Magistrate and the petition was rejected vide impugned order dated 10.11.2008. 7. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation of offence under the PC Act has to be done by high ranking police officers as provided under section 17 of the PC Act. According to the learned counsel, investigation by officers as provided under the Section 17 is mandatory. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has relied upon two judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court ; rendered in the case of HN Rishbud –Vs- State of Delhi: ( AIR 1955 SC 196 ) and the Judgment of State of Andhra Pradesh –vs- P V Narayana : ( AIR 1971 SC 811 ). 8. Per Contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submitted that even if it is construed that the provision of Section 17 of the PC Act are mandatory, the power of Magistrate to authorise a subordinate officer to investigate an offence still exists. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that to challenge the investigation and the charge sheet, the accused has to establish prejudice. In support of this contention, the learned counsel also cited an authority from the Hon’ble Supreme Court; rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh –vs- Bhagawant Kishore Joshi: ( AIR 1964 SC 221 ). 9. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this case, provision of Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988 are reproduced below in extenso. “17. 9. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this case, provision of Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988 are reproduced below in extenso. “17. Persons authorised to investigate- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,- (a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector police: (b) In the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police. (c) Elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant: Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such ofence wihout the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrte of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant: Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.” 10. It is true that in the case of HN Rishbud ( supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provision of Section 5-A of the PC Act, 1947 ( corresponding to Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988) are mandatory. The Apex Court also observed that while granting such permission to a subordinate officer, a Magistrate should satisfy himself that there are good and sufficient reasons and such permission should not be given in a routine manner. Their lordships’ have also observed that if the breach of law is brought to the notice of the Court at an early stage of the trial, the Court may consider ordering re-investigation. Despite that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not declare the provision of authorising a subordinate officer to investigate the case as under section 17 (5-A in the old law) as ultra vires. Despite that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not declare the provision of authorising a subordinate officer to investigate the case as under section 17 (5-A in the old law) as ultra vires. At the same time, their Lordships’ also observed that the illegality in the investigation must result into miscarriage of justice. 11. The aforesaid authority was also discussed in the case of PV Narayana (supra). In this case, their Lordships’ have also observed that it is not necessary that the superior officers, who are competent to investigate the case, should themselves write to the Magistrate to authorise a subordinate officer to investigate the case. At the same time, the apex court has noted that the superior officers must be in the picture, before the subordinate officer applies for permission to investigate the case. Their Lordships’ have further observed that before quashing a charge sheet or investigation, the Court has to come to a finding that the accused must have suffered prejudice. 12. With regard to the necessity of establishing prejudice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations in the case of Bhagawant Kishore Joshi (supra): “……………….The question is not whether in investigating an offence the police have disregarded the provisions of the Act, but whether the accused has been prejudiced by such disregard in the matter of his defence at the trial. It is therefore, necessary for the accused to throw a reasonable doubt that the prosecution evidence is such that it may have been manipulated or shaped by reason of the irregularity in the matter of investigation, or that he was prevented by reason of such irregularity from putting forward his defence or adducing evidence in support thereof. But where the prosecution evidence has been held to be true and where the accused had full say in the matter, the conviction cannot obviously be set aside on the ground of some irregularity or illegality in the matter of investigation: there must be a sufficient nexus, either established or probabilized, between the conviction and the irregularity in the investigation…………...” 13. In the case before me, the Superintendent of Police himself had handed over the investigation to the Sub-Inspector and this fact must have been taken note of by the learned Special Judge, since in the order dated 3.3.2006 the learned Judge has pointed out that he had perused the FIR. In the case before me, the Superintendent of Police himself had handed over the investigation to the Sub-Inspector and this fact must have been taken note of by the learned Special Judge, since in the order dated 3.3.2006 the learned Judge has pointed out that he had perused the FIR. Besides this, the prayer of the Sub-Inspector of Police was also supported by the learned Public Prosecutor. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Special Judge did not apply his judicious mind at all. 14. With regard to the prejudice of the petitioner, his case is that although TN Bhutia was a co-accused in the FIR, he has not been challaned along with the petitioner and this has caused immense prejudice. In my considered opinion, discharging an accused from being prosecuted by an investigating agency cannot ipso-facto cause any prejudice to the co- accused. The learned Standing Counsel, CBI has rightly submitted that the accused should establish vital irregularity and defect in the investigation to challenge the charge sheet by a subordinate officer. In other words, the accused, challenging the charge sheet, has to establish that because of un-skilled investigation, the accused has suffered prejudice. Besides this, the trial Court is also authorised to implead the co-accused during the course of trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 15. The above apart, I am of the view that investigation by a designated officer is mandatory only for the offence under the PC Act and not under the panel provisions of the IPC. As noted earlier, the accused/petitioner has been challaned only under Sections 420/471 of the IPC, the rigour Section 17 of the PC Act has militate with the charge sheet under the Indian Panel Code. In other words, mandatory requirement of investigation by an inspector has become redundant after the charge sheet. 16. For the reasons assigned herein above, I do not find merit in the revision application. Consequently, the revision application stands dismissed. 17. Registry is directed to send the LCR to the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, Assam immediately. The petitioner is directed to appear in the Court of the Magistrate on 2.5.2012 and receive further order. _____________