JUDGMENT Asim Kumar Ray, J. CRR No. 2592 of 2005 and CRR No. 2593 of 2005 arise out of the same order dated 27-4-2005 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta. Both the revisional applications are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. The aforesaid revisional applicationd are at the instance of Central Bureau of Investigation, petitioner challenging the order dated 27-4-2005 passed in Special Case No. 8 of 2004 and Special Case No. 9 of 2004 both arise out of RCCWA2003A0004 dated 31-1-2003 by learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta. The learned Judge has refused to take cognizance on the basis of the police report No. 15 and 16 dated 17-6-2004 and directed the Superintendence of Police, CBI/SAB/Calcutta to cause further investigation by competent officer and submit report in final form afresh by 18-6-2005. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order these revisional applications have been filed. It is necessary for convenience to place brief fact of the case. The same is as follows: The case was started on the basis of a secret information received by CBI/ACB/Calcutta on 31-1-2003 . It was alleged that Shri S.Dutta Gupta, Senior Divisional, Manager, Shri Prabir Banerjee, Assistant Manager , Shri N.K.Kundu, Administrative Officer, Shri D.K.Lahiri, Administrative Officer and Shri D.P.Ganguly, Administrative Officer all of National Insurance Company (in short NIC), Division-IX, Kolkata and some other unknown persons hatched up the criminal conspiracy during the year 1999-2000 to cheat NIC and thereby caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 672852 by passing bogus and fictitious motor vehicles claim. It was alleged that Shri D.K.Lahiri prepared bogus disbursement voucher No. 21564,21884,22123,24288,24078 and 22645 in respect of separate claims and in respect of all the said claims , the genuine policy holders had already submitted their claims and received payment. The accused persons prepared bogus disbursement vouchers and by abusing their official position prepared the signed cheques. The cheques were encashed by fictitious claims. By this fraudulent transactions accused persons defrauded and cheated National Insurance Company to the tune of Rs. 229672. It has been further alleged that 10 other bogus and fictitious claims were also prepared and a sum of Rs. 405780 was defrauded. Thus, National Insurance Company, Division-IX, Kolkata sustained a loss of Rs. 635452/-. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation RC Case No. CCAA2003A0004 dated 31-1-2003 was started. 229672. It has been further alleged that 10 other bogus and fictitious claims were also prepared and a sum of Rs. 405780 was defrauded. Thus, National Insurance Company, Division-IX, Kolkata sustained a loss of Rs. 635452/-. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation RC Case No. CCAA2003A0004 dated 31-1-2003 was started. Charge sheet being 15 of 2004 dated 17-6-2004 against the accused persons ,namely, D.K.Lahiri and Smt. Bulbul Chakraborty was submitted on 30-7-2004 for causing loss of Rs. 1,02,056. Similarly, on the very same day another charge sheet being No. 16 of 2004 arising out of same FIR was submitted against the accused persons , namely, D.K.Lahiri and Ashoke Kumar Mallick for causing a loss of Rs. 497196 to National Insurance Company, Division-IX, Kolkata. The learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta had formulated four points which are as follows: 1) Whether there can be spliting of FIR and submission of different independent reports u/s 173(2) Cr. P.C. on the basis of investigation started in respect of single FIR ? 2) Whether result of single investigation can be splited and separate reports in final form u/s 173(2) Cr. P.C. can be treated as police report u/s 2(r) of Cr. P.C. ? 3) Whether there can be more than one report in final form in respect of investigation arising out of a single FIR on the basis of same transaction or same occurrence ? 4) Whether cognizance can be taken on the basis of splited reports as required u/s 190(b) Cr. P.C. The points were discussed in the body of the order impugned and the learned Court below after considering the points passed the order directing the further investigation and for submissions of the report in final form afresh. Mr. Himangshu De, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the basis of one FIR two charge sheet can be submitted. There is no odd in it. He has referred to the following decisions to substantiate his contentions. 1. P.V.Narasimha Rao –vs-State (CBI/SPE) reported in AIR 1998 SC 2120 2. Dr. Jagannath Mishra –vs-Tripurari Mohan Prasad and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3838 3. Motisham Mohammed Ismail- vs- CBI,SCD Bank Securities and Frauds Cell, reported in 2003 CRI L J 4763 and 4. T.T.Antony –vs- State of Kerala & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637 . Mr. P.V.Narasimha Rao –vs-State (CBI/SPE) reported in AIR 1998 SC 2120 2. Dr. Jagannath Mishra –vs-Tripurari Mohan Prasad and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3838 3. Motisham Mohammed Ismail- vs- CBI,SCD Bank Securities and Frauds Cell, reported in 2003 CRI L J 4763 and 4. T.T.Antony –vs- State of Kerala & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 2637 . Mr. S.S.Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has contended that on the basis of a FIR separate charge sheet cannot be submitted. He has supported the order impugned. He has also referred to a decision of Goutam Ghosal –vs- State of West Bengal , reported in (2012) 2 C Cr LR (Cal ) 875 and has invited the attention of the Court to the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 2120 (P.V.Narasimha Rao –vs-State (CBI/SPE). He has contended further that on completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted. The investigating officer submitted supplementary charge sheet after further investigation with the leave of the Court. It is an admitted fact that charge sheet Nos. 15 and 16 of 2004 were submitted on the basis of a solitary FIR RC Case No. 04 of 2003 was recorded on the basis of the said FIR. The case was investigated into and the resultant effect of the investigation was submissions of two separate charge sheet. If the Court is to accept two separate charge sheet on the result of investigation of a particular case then the witness of both the cases would be same and similar. Documents connected in both the cases were collected on the basis of the same investigation. Therefore, if both the charge sheet are accepted then the result of the trial will be confusing. In the Case of P.V.Narasimha Rao (supra) on the basis of a complaint CBI registered four cases and after completion of the investigation three charge sheets were submitted. Second and third charge sheet were described as supplementary charge sheet. But in the instant case the charge sheet was independent charge sheet and one charge sheet was not the supplementary charge sheet. In the case of Dr. Jagannath Mishra-vs- CBI the subject matter was a transfer petition wherein Dr. Mishra applied for transfer of five cases to one Court for that matter separate cases were registered and investigated into separately. But in the instant case the charge sheet was independent charge sheet and one charge sheet was not the supplementary charge sheet. In the case of Dr. Jagannath Mishra-vs- CBI the subject matter was a transfer petition wherein Dr. Mishra applied for transfer of five cases to one Court for that matter separate cases were registered and investigated into separately. The factual background of that case and the issue for consideration before the Court was different. In the case of T.T.Antony –vs- State of Kerala the subject matter of discussion was for investigation of a case, submissions of charge sheet and for further investigation. In view of the provisions laid down in subsection 8 of Section 173 Cr.P.C. the learned Court has quoted relevant portion of this citation in the body of the order impugned. In the case of Motisham Mohammed Ismail- vs- CBI,SCD Bank Securities and Frauds Cell (supra) it was held that in all cases FIR is not required for the purpose of filing charge sheet. This is the decision of a learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court. In the case of Goutam Ghoshal –vs- State of West Bengal (supra), Mr. Dey, learned senior advocate appearing for the CBI submitted before the Court fairly that the CBI has acted not in accordance with law and should not have filed two separate charge sheets in two different Courts in stead of filing one charge sheet against all the persons who are found accused. In that case the Court has observed that one FIR, one investigation, two charge sheets and that to file in different Courts at different places is really unheard of. Mr. Dey, learned senior counsel appearing for the CBI failed to explain the situation. In the instant case Mr. Dey has argued on different footing. The order impugned is a speaking order. I do not find any odd in it. It does not call for any interference. In the result the revisional applications stand dismissed.