Judgment D.N.Upadhyay, J. This writ petition (cr.) has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.02.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2001 by which the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 22.05.1999 by which the final form submitted by the police was accepted and the C.J.M. was directed to pass a fresh order after perusing the case diary and after hearing the informant. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 29.08.2002 by which the learned C.J.M. (Incharge), Palamau at Daltonganj has taken cognizance against the petitioner and directed him to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 413 & 414 of the Indian Penal Code and this order was passed by the C.J.M. (Incharge) after the matter was remanded back with a direction to pass appropriate order. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 10.09.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Criminal Revision No. 68/2002 by which the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order of cognizance dated 29.08.2002 passed by the learned C.J.M. (Incharge), Palamau at Daltonganj. 2. Facts behind filing of this writ application are that one Arun Kumar Mishra has lodged information with Bishrampur Police Station within the District of Palamau that five idols have been stolen by unknown persons from Thakurbari. On the basis of information so lodged, Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 20/1996 dated 25.02.1996 under Sections 457/380 I.P.C. against unknown was registered and investigation was carried out. In absence of definite clue, final report was submitted on 4.1.1997 and it was accordingly accepted by the then learned Magistrate. After about one week one Raghu Thakur was arrested on 12.01.1997 and he gave his extra judicial confession before the villagers. On the basis of that confession, other accused, namely, Alakh Singh, Dwarika Saw and Vijay Kumar Soni were apprehended. In the confessional statement, name of the writ petitioner was also transpired but he could not be apprehended. On 12.3.1997 the police submitted supplementary final form against the aforesaid four persons namely, Raghu Thakur, Alakh Singh, Dwarika Saw and Vijay Kumar Soni under Sections 457/380/411/414 of the Indian Penal Code, keeping the investigation open against the writ petitioner. Those four persons were put on trial and they were accordingly convicted. On 12.3.1997 the police submitted supplementary final form against the aforesaid four persons namely, Raghu Thakur, Alakh Singh, Dwarika Saw and Vijay Kumar Soni under Sections 457/380/411/414 of the Indian Penal Code, keeping the investigation open against the writ petitioner. Those four persons were put on trial and they were accordingly convicted. During pendency of that trial, an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was also filed to summon the writ petitioner but it was then refused. The police has submitted final form No. 2/1999 dated 26.4.1999 in respect of the petitioner and it was presented before the learned C.J.M. on 18.5.1999. Just after three days on 22.5.1999 aforesaid final form filed against the petitioner was accepted and that order was challenged by respondent no. 2 vide Criminal Revision No. 53/2001. The revision was accordingly allowed vide order dated 18.2.2002 and the matter was remanded back to the Court of learned C.J.M. to pass fresh and appropriate order after going through the case diary and also after hearing the informant or the A.P.P. In view of the direction given by the learned Sessions Judge, the C.J.M. (Incharge) vide order dated 29.08.2002 took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 413 & 414 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue non-bailable warrant against him for appearance. The aforesaid order dated 29.08.2002 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No. 68/2002 but it was dismissed in limine by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.08.2002. Thereafter the petitioner filed present writ petition i.e. W.P. (Cr.) No. 284/2002 challenging the orders aforesaid but he did not get favourable order by this Court and this Court by order dated 28.3.2006 dismissed the writ petition and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. 3. The petitioner by filing Criminal Appeal No. 290/2009 corresponding to S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 3358/2006 has challenged the order dated 28.03.2006 passed by this Court and after hearing to the parties, their Lordship have pleased to set aside the aforesaid order passed by this Court and framed points (a) whether the revision petition before the Sessions Judge was maintainable at the instance of Respondent No.2 and that too after considerable length of time ? (b) whether the appellant needs to be heard ?; and (c) whether the informant has to be given notice ? (b) whether the appellant needs to be heard ?; and (c) whether the informant has to be given notice ? and remitted the matter back to this Court for reconsideration. 4. The parties were heard at length on the issue involved and the points framed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent no.2 has no locus standi to file Criminal Revision in a police case against the order dated 22.05.1999 passed by the learned C.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj. It was pointed out that respondent no.2 is an Advocate practicing at Civil Court, Palamau at Daltonganj and he is in no way aggrieved with the order dated 22.05.1999 by which final form submitted against the petitioner was accepted by the learned C.J.M. He is neither witness nor informant in the said case. He has further argued that Criminal Revision No. 53/2001 was presented before the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau after delay of about 2 years and delay in filing the Criminal Revision was indicated by the office of the learned Sessions Judge but it was not attended and no specific order condoning the delay was passed. Furthermore in the order dated 18.02.2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 53/2001 the points raised by the petitioner have not been discussed and the order appears to have been passed ex parte only granting hearing to the respondent no.2. It was further submitted that after the matter was remanded back to the Court of C.J.M., the Court directed to produce all necessary documents including case diary both original and supplementary and those documents were awaited for passing appropriate order but in the meantime on 29.08.2002 the learned C.J.M. (Incharge) ignoring earlier orders, took cognizance under Sections 413 & 414 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and at the very first instance directed to issue non-bailable warrant to be executed through S.P., Palamau. This also indicates that the learned C.J.M. (Incharge) passed the said order which is also under challenge, under the influence of respondent no.2, who is a practicing Advocate. This also indicates that the learned C.J.M. (Incharge) passed the said order which is also under challenge, under the influence of respondent no.2, who is a practicing Advocate. In this context, it was brought to my notice that after the matter was remanded back to the Court of C.J.M. the informant was served with a notice but he did not turn up and therefore, the informant who may be considered aggrieved has not made any protest against submission of final form and therefore, no cognizance should have been taken against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance in Criminal Revision No. 68/2002. The learned Sessions Judge, Palamau has dismissed the same in limine which is also illegal and said order is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned Counsel has submitted that in a police case any third party has no right to ventilate his grievance by filing Criminal Revision and he has no locus standi. In Police Case, State is the master of prosecution and the State can only challenge any order passed in a police case by raising grievance before the appellate authority and that has not been done in the present case. The State did not file any revision against the order by which final form was accepted. Needless to mention that petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to array the petitioner as accused was refused by the Trial Court and such finding of the Trial Court achieved finality because it was not challenged by the State. In course of argument, learned Counsel has indicated that respondent no.2, who is also having political background, in order to harass the petitioner, has been pursuing the matter against him and he has contested the litigation up to the Supreme Court. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court page 911, “Thakur Ram Vrs. State of Bihar, (ii) A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court page 280, (iii) A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court page 892 and submitted that under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. corresponding to old Section 435, any third person in a police case has no right to file Criminal Revision and he does not have locus standi. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court, reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal page 3242 in which earlier view of the Apex Court has been reiterated. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court, reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal page 3242 in which earlier view of the Apex Court has been reiterated. The petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in (1987) I S.C.C. 288 Shiv Nandan Prasad. 7. The respondent no.2 has appeared in person and submitted that lawyers are the priest of temple of justice and for the independent and fearless functioning of judiciary they always remain vigilant. They are under obligation to bring it to the notice of superior court if any illegality committed by any subordinate officer of the judiciary causes miscarriage of justice, and that is what had been done in the case at hand. As soon as the respondent could learn that an illegal order has been passed by accepting the final form without giving opportunity to the informant to be heard, the respondent filed a petition by way of revision before the learned Sessions Judge bringing the illegality committed by the court-below to the knowledge of learned Sessions Judge. A petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. The learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj admitted the revision filed by the respondent and after granting hearing to the parties, passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2002 in Criminal Revision No. 53/2001. On the point of limitation he has relied on the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C.C. 1169 corresponding to 1981 Cr. Law Journal. 8. It is further pointed out that duty of an informant against commission of cognizable offence is to put the law in motion. It is not expected that in each and every case the informant alone will be an aggrieved. The informant may or may not have grievance against the accused who has committed cognizable offence. Being a law abiding citizen, if the commission of any cognizable offence comes to the knowledge of any person, it is a moral duty of that person to inform the matter to the police so that legal action can be taken against the person at fault. There are instances in which the informant though not aggrieved but lodged information with the police against commission of cognizable offence. There are instances in which the informant though not aggrieved but lodged information with the police against commission of cognizable offence. For example if any incident took place on the road and any person sustained injury or died in the incident, any passers-by who has witnessed the occurrence, has right to inform the police but that does not mean he is an aggrieved with the incident. Take another example if the commission of any cognizable offence is reported by any police officer or government official or by a Chaukidar, the information so given by such person may bring him to the category of an informant but it cannot be said that he is the only aggrieved. In the case at hand five idols were stolen by unknown thieves from the ‘Takurbari’ and commission of theft of idols has not only caused grievance to the informant priest but the offence so committed caused hurt to the sentiment and faith of Hindu community and therefore the community at large is the aggrieved in this case. The petitioner being a Hindu also felt aggrieved and he considered it to be his bounden duty to bring the illegality committed by the court-below to the knowledge of learned Sessions Judge which he did. In this context, learned Counsel has relied on the judgment reported in (1995) 1 S.C.C. 189 “State of West Bengal & Ors. Vrs. Ashutosh Lahri & Ors.”; A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 149. Their Lordships in para 12 of the judgment have discussed the locus standi of the petitioner in that writ petition. 9. The respondent has further argued that the revision petition filed by him was well maintainable and it was rightly attended by the learned Sessions Judge. He has relied on the judgment reported in A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court 3318 K. Pandu rangan etc. vrs. S.S.R. Velusamy & Anr. (para 6); A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court page 2205 “Nadir Khan Vrs. State ( Delhi Administration). 10. I have gone through the lower court record, impugned orders under challenge, materials placed before me and the judgments cited from both sides. The matter has been remanded for reconsideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court exercising criminal appellate jurisdiction vide Cr. Appeal No.No.290 of 2009 arising out of S.L.P (Cr.) No. 3358 of 2006. State ( Delhi Administration). 10. I have gone through the lower court record, impugned orders under challenge, materials placed before me and the judgments cited from both sides. The matter has been remanded for reconsideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court exercising criminal appellate jurisdiction vide Cr. Appeal No.No.290 of 2009 arising out of S.L.P (Cr.) No. 3358 of 2006. Their Lordships have framed three questions to be answered at the time of reconsidering the matter and the first one is (a)- Whether the revision petition before the Sessions Judge was maintainable at the instance of Respondent No.2 and that too after considerable length of time ? Before adverting opinion, I would like to refer Section 397 Cr.P.C., 1973 which reads as under:- “397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.” 11. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.” 11. Section 397 of the present Act corresponds to Section 435 of the old Act and the changes appearing in Section 397 of the new Act are as follows:- “ (1) In sub-s (1), the words “or District Magistrate”, or any Sub-divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in this behalf after “ Sessions Judges” have been omitted and in the Explanation the italicised words have been added. (2) Old-sub-s (2) has been omitted and a new sub-s (2) has been inserted. (3) Old sub-s (4) has been renumbered sub-s (3) and redrafted the changes being shown in italics. Material changes introduced are: (1) The power of revision has been given only to the High Court and Sessions Court. (2) The power of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order [sub-s (2)]. See also s 341 (2) where revision has also been specifically barred. (3) As the High Court and the Sessions Court have been given concurrent power, it has been provided that if any application has been made by a party either to the Sessions Court or to the High Court no further application shall be entertained by the either of them [sub-s (3)]. The section as enacted goes beyond and departs from the Law Commission of India 41st Report Vol. 1 para 32.8, 32.9 See Joint Committee Report para xxxviii.” 11. In sub-section (3) of Section 397 “words” by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge has been added. Thus the new Act gives right to any person to file an application for bringing the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of the inferior court to the knowledge of Sessions Judge or the Hon’ble High Court. Thus the new Act gives right to any person to file an application for bringing the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of the inferior court to the knowledge of Sessions Judge or the Hon’ble High Court. Besides the above right given to any person, Section 397 of the new Act gives power to the High Court or the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situated within its or his legal jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding or such inferior court and may, when calling for such records direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, either he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Therefore, it is clear that sub-section (1) of Section 397 even gives power to the Sessions Judge and the High Court to call for any record of inferior criminal court suo motu for the purpose of examining correctness, legality or propriety any such finding or order. The object behind enactment is crystal clear that enquiry, proceeding or trial of the inferior criminal court can well be examined by the Sessions Judge or the Hon’ble High Court in view of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. so as to correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by any inferior criminal court to avoid miscarriage of justice and also to restore faith of the common people in the judicial system. The power conferred exercisable by Hon’ble High Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is more or less equally exercisable by learned Sessions Judge under Section 399 of the Cr.P.C. In the judgment reported in “Nadir Khan Vrs, The State (Delhi Administration)” (Supra) (para 5) their Lordships have held that Section 401 expressly preserves the power of the High Court by itself to call for the records without the intervention of another agency and has kept alive the ancient exercise of power conferred when something extraordinary comes to the knowledge of the High Court. Their Lordships in the case of K. Pandurangan etc. Vrs. R. Velusamy & Anr. Their Lordships in the case of K. Pandurangan etc. Vrs. R. Velusamy & Anr. (supra) in para 6 has held:- “So far as the first question as to the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the complainant is concerned, we think the said argument has only to be noted to be rejected. Under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court has suo motu power of revision, if that be so, the question of the same being invoked at the instance of an outsider would not make any difference because ultimately it is the power of revision which is already vested with the High Court statutorily that is being exercised by the High Court. Therefore, whether the same is done by itself or at the instance of a third party will not affect such power of the High Court.” 12. So far the delay in presenting the revision application is concerned the relevant portion of para 5 of the judgment, reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1169. “Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vrs Giridhari Lal Spara & Ors” is relevant which is as under:- “It, however, appears that the respondents contended that the revision petition was barred by limitation. Even this contention is founded on a very technical ground that even though the revision petition was filed 8. very much in time the requisite power of attorney of the learned advocate on behalf of the petition was not legally complete and when it was re-submitted the limitation had expired. Without going into the nicety of this too technical contention we may notice that section 397 of the code of Criminal Procedure enables the High Court to exercise power of revision suo motu and when the attention of the High Court was drawn to a clear illegality the High Court could not have rejected the petition as time barred thereby perpetuating the illegality and miscarriage of justice.” Therefore the revision petition ever presented after delay, if prima facie suggest and indicate about the illegality committed, that can’t be rejected on too technical ground of delay. Here in the case at hand petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed to condone the delay is not disputed, rather dispute is that no specific order to condone the delay was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Here in the case at hand petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed to condone the delay is not disputed, rather dispute is that no specific order to condone the delay was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not think that such ground is tenable in view of the judgment referred to above. 13. The procedure and law prescribed against the issues involved have been indicated above but it would not serve the purpose if the facts of the case in hand are not indicated. On the basis of information lodged by one Arun Kumar Mishra that five idols from Takurbari have been stolen away by unknown thieves Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 20/1996 dated 25.02.1996 under Sections 457/380 I.P.C. was registered and investigation was carried out. At the first instance the I.O. was not able to collect clue to apprehend the accused and therefore submitted final form on 4.1.1997. Thereafter one of the accused Raghu Thakur was arrested on 12.1.1997 and he gave his extra judicial confession before the villagers disclosing the names of other accused including name of writ petitioner. The apprehended accused were charge-sheeted and put on trial whereas investigation against writ petitioner remained open. The most important aspect of the case is that at no point of time or by no order of the Government, investigation of Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 20/1996 was handed over to C.I.D. How the superior official of C.I.D. had put them involved in the investigation is completely unknown and no C.I.D. officer had ever investigated into the matter. What happened was very surprising because the police officer who had been investigating the case against the writ petitioner was influenced by a superior officer of C.I.D. and without authority, a letter directing the Investigating Officer to submit final form against the writ petitioner was issued and the Investigating Officer keeping aside the investigation and evidence collected, followed the instruction of that superior officer of the C.I.D. and submitted final form No.2 of 1999 dated 26.4.1999 which was placed before the learned C.J.M. on 18.5.1996. Just after three days without bringing the result of the investigation to the knowledge of informant, on 22.5.1999 aforesaid final form was accepted and this acceptance of final form and winding up of the case as against writ petitioner did not come to the knowledge of informant or any other aggrieved. Just after three days without bringing the result of the investigation to the knowledge of informant, on 22.5.1999 aforesaid final form was accepted and this acceptance of final form and winding up of the case as against writ petitioner did not come to the knowledge of informant or any other aggrieved. When respondent tried to know the result of the investigation which was going on against the writ petitioner and he filed petition under Right to Information, then he could learn about the illegality committed by the learned C.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj. Thereafter the respondent came in action and filed revision petition vide Cr. Revision No. 53/2001 before the learned Sessions Judge in which the impugned order was passed and the C.J.M. was directed to go through the case diary and the evidence collected during investigation and pass appropriate order. In view of direction given by the learned Sessions Judge, impugned order dated 29.8.2002 was passed by the learned C.J.M. ( Incharge) and the cognizance was taken against the writ petitioner. I have already indicated how the investigation was influenced by the superior officers of the C.I.D. and that too without jurisdiction. I did not find that the investigation was ever handed over to the C.I.D. or C.I.D. had ever investigated into the matter. In the case at hand the informant is not the only aggrieved and he was not the absolute owner of the property stolen. At best we can consider the identity of the informant to be that of a watchman, who was a priest in the Thakurbari. Needless to say that Hindu community at large is having faith in the God and they worship and offer prayer before idols. The theft of idols from Thakurbari is sufficient to make the community aggrieved and therefore, the respondent who is by faith Hindu has every right to bring the illegality committed by the Court to the knowledge of superior Court which he did. The findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of West Bengal and Others Vrs. Ashutosh Lahiri” (supra) appears relevant. The writ petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of “Thakur Ram Vrs. State of Bihar”, reported in (1966) 2 S.C.R. 740 : AIR 1966 SC 911 : 1966 Cr. The findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of West Bengal and Others Vrs. Ashutosh Lahiri” (supra) appears relevant. The writ petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of “Thakur Ram Vrs. State of Bihar”, reported in (1966) 2 S.C.R. 740 : AIR 1966 SC 911 : 1966 Cr. LJ 700 which would not be helpful because three changes have been given effect by way of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which were not available at that point of time and the findings were based on the provisions contained under Section 435 of the old Act. In the circumstances, the answer against issue no. (a) framed by the Supreme Court is in affirmative and the revision brought before the learned Sessions Judge was well maintainable at the instance of respondent no.2 even after delay. 14. The second issue framed by the Apex Court is whether appellant needs to be heard ?. It was argued that before admitting the revision application, which was filed after long delay the writ petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard. Again I would like to refer Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and the judgments referred by the respondent. The very purpose against entertaining a revision application is to examine correctness, legality and propriety of orders passed by the inferior criminal court. The Sessions Judge as well as the High Court are having concurrent jurisdiction to exercise such power of examining the record of inferior criminal court suo motu and therefore, before admitting the revision, it is always not expected to serve notice to the opposite party to hear him on the point of limitation. The writ petitioner has not challenged that he was not heard before the order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 53/2001. The grievance of the petitioner is that the argument advanced by him and points raised have not been discussed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. In this context, I do agree that reasonings, either to accept or to reject argument advanced by the parties in course of any enquiry, proceeding or trial is required to be given. The learned Sessions Judge should have discussed the argument of the appellant which appears to have not been done. In this context, I do agree that reasonings, either to accept or to reject argument advanced by the parties in course of any enquiry, proceeding or trial is required to be given. The learned Sessions Judge should have discussed the argument of the appellant which appears to have not been done. But from perusal of impugned order, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order in Cr. Revision No. 53/2001 has assigned reasons for setting aside the order by which final form was accepted without applying judicial mind by the learned C.J.M. 15. (c) Now coming to the last point whether informant has to be given notice ? There are certain provisions and technicalities in the procedures which empowers only the informant to raise his grievance for its redressal. In this context, 1 would like to refer Section 173 (1) & 2 which reads as under:- Report of police officer on completion of investigation. (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating- (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom ; (e) whether the accused has been arrested ; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under s 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.” In a case lodged on a police report if the result of the investigation, as indicated above, in the provision under Section 173 (2) (ii) is not brought to the notice of the informant, he would not be in a position to raise his grievance if he is aggrieved with the result of the investigation. The informant has every right to raise voice against faulty and perfunctory investigation if done by the I.O. and the stage to ventilate such grievance comes only after submission of final form. The informant has right to make protest and the protest so made in writing can be considered as a Protest cum Complaint and then the Court shall have to adopt procedure of a complaint case and for that, procedure contained under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. is to be complied with. On the submission of the final form if the result of the investigation is not brought to the notice of the informant, then it would be the duty of the Court to make the informant acquaint with the result of the investigation so that he may raise his grievance if he is aggrieved with the investigation and this is demand of natural justice. Unless result of the investigation is not brought to the notice of the informant he would not be in a position to raise his grievance and that may cause injustice and hence for the ends of justice it is desirable that the informant must be given knowledge with regard to the result of investigation. Therefore, before accepting the final form the notice is required to be given to the informant and the answer of third issue is also in affirmative. 16. From perusal of the record it also transpired that the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court with clean hands and he had tried to mislead the Court for getting suitable relief. In this context, the copies of the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Revision No.32 of 2007 & 38 of 2007 available on record are relevant. Considering all these aspects and also in view of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, I do not find any merit in this writ application and the same stands dismissed with an observation that the Trial Court shall proceed further expeditiously to commence and conclude the trial in accordance with law. Considering all these aspects and also in view of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, I do not find any merit in this writ application and the same stands dismissed with an observation that the Trial Court shall proceed further expeditiously to commence and conclude the trial in accordance with law. This case was instituted in the year 1996 and now it is 2014 and the litigation went up to the Supreme Court and therefore, the writ petitioner is directed to appear before the court-below within thirty days from the date of this order so that the trial may commence and conclude within a reasonable time preferably within one year from the date of appearance of the petitioner. The office is directed to send back the lower court record to the court concerned.