ORDER : This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.P.N.Hegde for petitioner through VC and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent who appeared before the court. 3. Petition is presented against the order of dismissal of application filed for discharge of accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.1037/2013 dated 10.08.2015 connecting to offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping parties are addressed in accordance with the status and rankings as stood before the trial court. 5. A criminal case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in C.C.No.9767/2013 against Siddappa Amarappa Sindanur. In due course of time the matter was committed to the court of LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Accused made application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C and sought for discharge for the offence stated above on the ground the investigation of the case was conducted by CCB Police of the City of Bengaluru. 6. Criminal case came to be registered in Crime No.58/2013 and charge sheeted accused –Siddappa Amarappa Sindanur husband of CW34 was having illicit affair with CW10 and CW11 and was addicted to vices and on 19.03.2013 near coin booth at Shivananda Circle telephoned Sujatha mobile No.9741873788 and when CW15 and CW34 were in their house at Malleshwaram accused told a lie regarding his friend’s arrival and purchased knife from CW25, got food and also beer from Bhavani Bar and Restaurant in the guise of engaging in sexual intercourse attacked Sujatha with knife and cut her neck and other parts of the body, robbed ornaments of about 145 grams and mobile phone and committed murder of the said lady. 7. The contention of the accused has been that CCB is not the police station and person who investigated the offence is not Station House Officer and not competent to investigate the offence or to submit final report. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application. The accused has presented the revision petition before this court and seeks for discharge on the above ground and also learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Commissioner of Police, City of Bengaluru could not have transferred investigation to CCB police. 8. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application. The accused has presented the revision petition before this court and seeks for discharge on the above ground and also learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Commissioner of Police, City of Bengaluru could not have transferred investigation to CCB police. 8. Learned counsel for accused Sri.P.N.Hegde would submit that entire proceedings are vitiated as the CCB Police does not fall within the definition of Station House Officer. It was also submitted by learned counsel that the Commissioner could not have transferred the case to CCB Police as there was no locus standi for the said police. 9. Thus, the present petition is filed on the said grounds and point of law and not on the facts of the case. 10. Learned counsel for accused would submit that this court in the case of N.Rajachar and others Vs Sri Kodandarama and others reported in ILR 2002 Kar 2909 has held that Magistrate acting under Section 156(3) has no power to refer a case for investigation to CCB. Further relied upon another decision of this court in Criminal Petition No.3338/2015 and submitted that when a police officer exercising his power under Section 36 Cr.P.C cannot take out investigation from the officer incharge of a police station and transfer the same to another officer incharge. 11. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Raj Kumar Karwal Vs Union of India and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 45 is not applicable to the case on hand. 12. Learned HCGP Sri.K.Nageshwarappa appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the present application do not come under the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C and trial Judge has rightly rejected the application. He would further submit that there is no provision that disentitles CCB from investigating the case. As a matter fact what was directed was only investigation to the CCB and case itself was not transferred to CCB Police. To conclude his submission submitting that the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application. 13. Trial of a offence commence when the court starts hearing on charge but find it whether there are sufficient materials to frame charge for the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused and the court takes cognizance of the offence and not offender. 13. Trial of a offence commence when the court starts hearing on charge but find it whether there are sufficient materials to frame charge for the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused and the court takes cognizance of the offence and not offender. In this case charge sheet/final report under Section 173 was filed before the committal court and after the matter was committed to the trial court and when the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge filed by the accused was dismissed present revision petition is filed. 14. Taking of cognizance of offence is not challenged. The present application is against the order of rejecting the application for discharge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 15. Criminal case was not registered by CCB i.e., which is stated to be under Commissioner of Police. On the other hand among the materials filed with the revision petition the index copy of final report suggests that the criminal case was registered in Crime No.58/13 of Yelahanka Police which is a police station and accused does not have dispute regarding the status of the said authority and after investigation charge sheet was filed before the said court. 16. Thus the submission of the learned counsel that the Magistrate cannot entrust investigation to the CCB has no application in the sense the present complaint was registered by an identified police station of Yelahanka. 17. Insofar as Section 36 Cr.P.C deals with powers of superior officer of police and it is as under: Section 36 – Powers of superior officers of police – Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. 18. Further submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the police officer exercising power under Section 36 Cr.P.C cannot take back a case from an officer incharge of police station and transfer investigation to another police officer inferior to him. Insofar as said principle is concerned there is no question of withdrawing the file from the police station of Yelahanka and entrusting the same to another officer below the rank. As a matter of fact the final report also goes to the account of Yelahanka Police Station in Crime No.58/13. Insofar as said principle is concerned there is no question of withdrawing the file from the police station of Yelahanka and entrusting the same to another officer below the rank. As a matter of fact the final report also goes to the account of Yelahanka Police Station in Crime No.58/13. Investigation being conducted by CCB police no where vitiated the proceedings under Section 36 Cr.P.C. 19. Learned HCGP submitted that it is police wing of CCB that works under Commissioner. By jurisdiction wise case came to be registered in Yelahanka Police Station and investigation in the instance case itself was conducted by CCB. As I have mentioned earlier the impugned order is challenged only because of the investigating agency. In the overall circumstances, I do not find irregularity or illegality in the order dated 10.08.2015 passed in S.C.No.1037/2013. Application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly petition is rejected.