UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONversusS. PAPAIAH AND ORS.

A                   UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
                                   v.
                          S. PAPAIAH AND ORS.

                              SEPTEMBER 11, 1997

B             [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]


         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 173-Union Public Service
  Commission-Conducted examination-Unfair means in the Examination-
C Investigation by CBI-Final report submitted to Magistrate-No notice to
   appellant to file objections on report-Final report accepted by Magistrate-
   Request for reinvestigation rejected-Revision petition dismissed by Add.
  Sessions Judge-Held, issuance of notice by the Magistrate before accepting
  final report is a ''must' '-The Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the revision
  petition-Matter remitted to Metropolitan Magistrate-Directions to CBI to
D further Investigate the case expeditiously to be issued by the Metropolitan
  Magistrate.

          The appellant-Union Public Service Commission conducted Indian
    Forest Service Examination, in which Respondent No. I, a candidate, used
    unfair ml'an~. The appellant requested the Central Bureau of Investigation to
E   investigate the case snd a regular case was registered. The CBI filed a final
    report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the
    Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate did not accept the
    report as copy of notice issued to the appellant was not filed alongwith the
    final report. The Magistrate directed the CBI to issue notice to appellant
F   stating that the appellant may file objections to the final report. But the CBI
    did not comply with the directions of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
          Appellant wrote to the CBI pointing out that the investigation was not
    properly carried out and requested for reinvestigation of the case. This letter
    was in the nature ofa "protest petition". In the meantime, the CBI resubmitted
    the report which was accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the case
G   was closed. The petition filed by the appellant before the Metropolitan
    Magistrate for reinvestigation of the case was rejected. The Revision Petition
    before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge was also dismissed. Hence
    the present appeal.
          It was contended for the appellant that the omission to issue notice to
H                                         56
                            U.P.S.C. v. S. PAPAIAH                              57
the appellant before accepting the .final report and closing the case vitiates        A
the order of the Court accepting the final report. It was also contended that
the observations of the Sessions Judge that notice had been issued to the
appellant as <!irected by the lower court and inspite of that notice, the appellant
had not filed any objections was clearly erroneous and against the record.

      Allowing the appea~ this Court                                                  B

       HELD : 1. No notice was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the
appellant before accepting the final report submitted by the CBI and deciding
not to take cognizance and drop the procf,edings. This omission vitiates the
order of the court accepting the final rep.ort. The issue is no longer res            C
integra. As per the law laid in Bhagwant Singh's case* the issuance of a
notice by the Magistrate to the informant at the time of consideration of the
final report is a "must". This binding precedent, which is the law of the land,
has not been followed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and was wrongly ignored
by the revisional Court also. [63-C-D; 64-B-C],
                                                                                      D
      *Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr., (1985] 2 SCC
537, relied on.

      1.2. The issuance of notice by the CBI to the appellant was not a
substitute for the notice which was required to be given by the Magistrate.
The CBI also did not issue any fresh notice to appellant before it resubmitted E
the final report to the Magistrate. The Magistrate could not in any event
"delegate" to the investigating agency its function of issuing notice. Moreover, ·
when law requires a particul.ar thing to be_ done in a particular manner, h
must be done in that manner. [64-D-E]

      2. The CBI did not bring to the notice of the Metropolitan Magistrate           F
while submitting final report that the appellant had pointed out certain defects
in the investigation and has demanded reinvestigation. It was improper on the
part of the investigating officer of the CBI to have withheld a vital document
which was in the nature ofa "protest petition". The withholding of vital
information has created· a doubt about the fairness on the .part of the               G
investigating officer. Had the contents of the communication been brought to
the notice of the Magistrate, he might not have dropped the proi:eedings. This
lapse-deliberate or inadvertent-renders the order of Metropolitan Magistrate
bad. [64-F-H; 65-A-Bj

      3. The Metropolitan Magistrate overlooked the provisions of section             H
    58                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate in exercise of the powers
  under section 173(8) Cr. P.C. could have directed the CBI to further investigate
  the case and collect further evidence keeping in view the objections raised by
  the appellant and the new report to be submitted by the investigating officer
  would be governed by sub-sections (2) to (6) of section 173 Cr. P.C. The
B Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law and his
  order cannot be sustained. [65-D; 65-G-H)

         4. The Sessions Judge also committed an error in dismissing the
  revision petition filed by the appellant He also failed to take into consideration
  the provisions of section 173(8) of Cr. P.C. The Revisional Court also
C committed error on question of fact The Sessions Judge erroneously observed
  that notice regarding the filing offinal report had been issued to the appellant
  alongwith a copy of the final report calling upon it to file objections. On facts
  these observations are incorrect. Neither any notice was issued to the
  appellant by the court nor was the appellant ever called upon to file objections
  to the final report by the court. The Sessions Judge, thus, failed to exercise
D his revisional jurisdiction properly and his order dismissiiig the revision
  petition filed by the appellant cannot be sustained. [66-A-B; D)

        5. The Metropolitan Magistrate shall issue directions under section
  173(8) Cr. P;C. to the CBI to further investigate the case and collect further
  evidence keeping in view the points raised by the 11ppella11t. It would be
E appropriate that further investigation to be carried out by the CBI under
  section 173(8) Cr. P.C. is done by an officer, other than the officer who had
  earlier investigated the case and filed the final report seeking closure of the
  case. The CBI be directed to complete the investigation expeditiously and
  proceed in the matter in accordance with law in the light of the present
F judgment. [66-H; 67-A)
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 837
    of 1997.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of the !st Additional
G Metropolitan Sessions Court at Hyderabad in Crl. R.P. No. 261 of 1995.
        Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Krishan Mahajan and D.S.
    Mehra for the Appellants.

          Raju Ramachandran, D. Ramakrishna Reddy and S. Udaya Kumar Sagar
H for the Respondent.
                  U.P.S.C. v. S. PAPAIAH [DR. ANAND, J.]                     59
      P.P. Malhotra, A.D.N. Rao and Ms~ Fizani Hussain for the CBI.                A
      The Judgment Order of the Court was delivered by

      DR. ANAND, J. Special leave granted.

      Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter the UPSC), appellant herein,    B
conducted Indian Forest Service Examination for 1992. One of the centres for
the examination was the Urdu-Hall sub-centre at Hyderabad. Respondent No.
1 appeared as a candidate and took the examination from the said hall. On
September 27, 1.993 the UPSC sent to the Joint Director, CBI, a complaint
alleging the.use of unfair means at the examination by respondent No. I in
collusion with the supervisor incharge of the said centre-respondent No. 2.        C
It was pointed out by the UPSC in the complaint that it had received a
pseudonymous letter disclosing that answer sheets were written by the
candidate-respondent No. 1 at a specified address in Gandhi Nagar, Hyder~bad,
outside the examination hall. It was also stated that the UPSC had found
certain factors suggesting a nexus between ·the candidate-respondent No. 1         D
and the supervisor incharge, after an examination of answer books, answer
sheets, attendance list, attendance sheet, sitting plan and certain other
documents. It was then stated that respondent No. i appears to have adopted·
the same modus-operanai on an earlier occasion too by appearing at the
Urdu-Hall sub-centre instead of at the allotted centre for 1993 Civil Services
(Preliminary) exam held on June 13, 1993. The UPSC requested the CBI to            E
investigate the case on a priority basis and to intimate the results of the
investigation to it. The CBI on receipt of the complaint registered it as
complaint No. 17/14/93-C. IV and on October 19, 1993, a regular case was
registered by the CBi on the basis of the aforesaid complaint being Crime No.
3(S)/93-SIU. II against respondent Nos. l, 2, and 3 for offences under Sections
120-B, 420, 381, 468 and 478 I.P.C. The Investigation was entrusted to Shri T.N.   F
Rao, S.P.

       It transpires from the record that on September 12, 1994, the CBI filed
a final report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. in the court of the Vth Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, before whom the FIR had been lodged, seeking closure        G
of the case. The CBI inspite of the request to it by the UPSC did not inform
it about the filing of the final report seeking closure of the case. On December
5, 1994, the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate returned the final report because
copy of the notice required to be issued to the complainant by the CBI had
not been filed along with it, though on behalf of the CBI it was asserted that
it had informed the UPSC regarding the filing of the Closure report. On            H
    60                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A December 24, 1994, final report was resubmitted by the CBI to the Court of
    Vth Metropolitan Magistrate along with a copy of the notice sent by the CBI
    to the appellant-complainant. Once again, on December 31, 1994 the Vth
    Metropolitan Magistrate returned the final report to the CBI, seeking proof
    of service of notice on the de-facto complainant. In his order the learned
B   Metropolitan Magistrate further directed the CBI that in the notice to b€~
    served upon the UPSC, it should be clearly indicated that the UPSC, may file
    its objections to the final report. On January 6, 1995 the CBI, it appears,
    resubmitted the final report together with an acknowledgment of the receipt
    of notice from the UPSC dated December 19, 1994. In the notice, the receipt
    of which was acknowledged by the UPSC on December 19, 1994 and copy
C   whereof was filed by the CBI in the Court on January 6, 1995, the CBI had
    not informed the UPSC that it could file objections to the final report as
    directed by the learned Magistrate. The CBI, for reasons best known to it, did
    not comply with the order of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate dated December
    31, 1994.

D           Neither a fresh notice was issued nor was the UPSC told that under
     orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate it could file its objections. The
     final report was once again returned by'the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate to
    the CBI on January 12 1995, as the statements of the witnesses, copies of the
     documents including the reports of the hand writing experts etc. had not been
E   filed by the CBI along with the closure report. While matters rested thus, the
    UPSC addressed a letter to Shri K. Vijaya Rama Rao, Director, Central Bureau
    of Investigation, New Delhi, on January 23, 1995 pointing out that CBI had
     informed it (vide its letter dated December 14, 1994) that it had decided to
    close the case under Section 173 Cr. P.C. and that the closure report had been
    filed in the court. The UPSC pointed out that the investigation had not been
F   carried out properly and the filing of the closure report was therefore not
    justified. The UPSC asserted that there was need for reinvestigation because
    some of the vital points raised in its complaint had not been touched at all
    by the investigating officer during the investigation. As many as six such
    points were brought to the notice of the Director, CBI. It was requested that
G   the case be reinvestigated by the CBI at some "higher level". This
    communication was in the nature of a ''protest petition'' to the CBI in response
    to the notice from the CBI to the UPSC dated December 14, 1995 informing
    it that the CBI had filed a closure report of the case before the learned
    Magistrate. While the UPSC was awaiting further communication from the CBI
    in that behalf, the CBI it appears resubmitted the closure report on February
H   24, 1995. On March 16, 1995, the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, accepted the
                   U.P.S.C. v. S. PAPAIAH [DR. ANAND, J.]                     61
final report submitted by the CBI and closed the file without any opportunity       A
being provided to the UPSC to have its say.

      Labouring under the impression that the CBI would have started further
investig;:tion in the case in view of its letter dated January 23, 1995 and
oblivious of the fact that the CBI had resubmitted 'the closure report, the
UPSC on April 6, 1995 issued a reminder
                                     .               .
                                           to the Director, CBI vide D.O. No.
F. 17/14/93-CI enquiring about the "reinvestigation" of the case. On April 26,
                                                                                    B

1995, the. Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI wrote a letter to the
Secretary, UPSC, bearing No. 1881/3/(S)/93-SIU. II in which it was stated that
the closure report had since been filed· in the court of the Vth Metropolitan
Magistrate on February 24, 1995 under Section 173 Cr. P .C. along with all the      C
original documents including the statements of the witnesses and that the
Court had accepted the closure report and had closed the file. A copy of the
order of the Court accepting the closure report was enclosed with the
communication. Referring to the grievance of the UPSC, as detailed in its letter
dated January 23, 1995 addressed to the Director, the communication stated:
                                                                                    D
            "Regarding your queries raised vide yollr DO letter No F 17/14/
        93-C. VI dt/23.1.95, it is Submitted that in case the UPSC de.sires that
        the case should be re-investigated on the points raised by them, the
        concerned court has to be moved accordingly, as the CBI's Closure
        Report has already been accepted by the Court.,'                            E
       On receipt of the above communication from the CBI, the UPSC filed a
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2040of1995 in R.C. No. 2 ofl995 in the Court
of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. In the petition, after detailing
the facts, it was submitted that the investigation carried out by the CBI had
been sketchy and that many vital points mentioned in the complaint and              F
highlighted in its letter dated January 23, 1995 addressed to the Director, had
not been investigated properly. The UPSC submitted that no notice had been
issued by. the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to the UPSC before accepting
the final report and therefore the order of acceptance of the final report was
vitiated. It was requested that further high level investigation was :necessary,    G
as the case involved alleged cheating during All India Ser\iices Examination
and was a matter of general public interest. The court was requested to order
re-investigation of the case in the interest of justice. In response to the
petition, the CBI filed its reply stating that since the UPSC had not filed its
objections to the final report, it could not be now permitted to make any
grievance about the acceptance of the final report and that the petition be         H
    62                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A rejected . The Court rejected the petition of the UPSC observing that it had
    accepted the final report filed by the CBI on March 16, 1955, since the
    appellant had not filed its objections to the acceptance of the final report and
    as such it could not complain. Even though the Court, recorded in its order
    that it had not given any notice to the appellant before accepting the final
B   report filed by the CBI on March 16, 1995 yet it declined to order
    "reinvestigation" or further investigation. The Court opined that since an
    order accepting final report was a judicial order and not an administrative
    order, therefore, it had no power to review such an order passed by it "rightly
    or wrongly" and that the UPSC could file a revision petition seeking
    appropriate orders against the acceptance of final report from the revisional
C   court. The UPSC then filed a revision petition before the Ist Additional
    Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad on December 11, 1995. Vide order
    dated March 8 1996, Criminal Revision Petition No. 2of1995 was dismissed
    by the revisional court. The learned Ist Additional Metropolitan Sessions
    Judge agreed with the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate that the Magistrate had
    no power to review its order dated March I 6, 1995 and observed that since
D   the learned Magistrate had accepted the final report by following proper
    procedure it did not require any interference. Referring to the observations
    of this Court reported in AIR (1985) SC 1285 to the effect that an opportunity
    is required to be given to both sides by the Court before dropping criminal
    proceedings against persons mentioned in the FIR, it was observed:
E
                "In the present case, notice was given to the petitioner as directed
           .by the Lower Court and the petitioner having not filed any objections
            to the Final Report, came up with a review application subsequently,
            which is not maintainable".

F        It is this order of the learned I st Additional Metropolitan Sessions
    Judge which has been put in issue in the present appeal.

          We have traced the detailed facts of the case with a view to test the
    correctness of the orders of the Magistrate dated March 16, 1995 and November
G   4, 1995 and that of revisional court dated March 8, 1996 since facts assume
    great significance in this case.

          Mr. Altaf Ahmad, the learned ASG appearing for the UPSC submitted
    that the observations of the learned Sessions Judge that notice had been
    issued to the appellant "as directed by the lower court" and inspite of that
H   notice, the appellant had not filed any objections was clearly erroneous and
                  U.P.S.C. v. S. PAPAIAH [DR. ANAND, J.]                       63
against the record. Learned counsel submitted that the Vth Metropolitan              A
Magistrate did not call upon the appellant at any point of time to file objections
to the closure report and no notice whatsoever was. issued by the Court to
the appellant before accepting the final report and though this factual position
had been noticed by the learned Magistrate himself in its order in Cr. M.P.
No. 2040 of 1995, the revisional court based its order on wrong factual
assumptions. The omission to issue notice to the app.ellant before accepting
                                                                                     B
the final report and closing the case, argu~d the learned ASG, vitiates the
order of the court accepting the final report and th.e case requires to be further
investigated.

      In the present case, admittedly, no notice was issued by the Vth               C
Metropolitan Magistrate to the appellant before accepting the final report
submitted by the CBI and deciding not to take cognizance and drop the
proceedings. This omission vitiates the order ofthe learned court accepting
the final report. The issue is no longer res~integra. A three Judge Bench of
this Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh v, Commissioner of Police & Anr.,
[1985] 2 sec 537 speaking through Bhagwati, J while dealing with a situation         D
arising out of the report being forwarded by an officer-in-charge of a police
station to the Magistrate under sub-section 2(i) of Section 173, stating that
no offence appears to have been committed, opined that on receipt of wch
a report the Magistrate can adopt one. of the three courses i.e .. ( 1) he may
accept the report and drop the proceedings or (2) he may disagree with the           E
report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for. proceeding
further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3) he may dire.ct
further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of section
156. The bench, dealing with the first· option of dropping the proceedings
went on to say :
                                                                                     F
             'There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration
      · of the report made by the officer-in-charge ofa police station under
        sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take
        cognizance of the offence ·and issue process, the informant must be
        given an opportunity of being heard. so that he can make his
        submissions to persuade· the Magistrate to take cognizance of the
                                                                                  G
        offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a
        case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under. sub-
        section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the
        offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that ther.e is .no
        sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned H
    64                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C:.R.

A           in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the
            informant and provide him an opportunity /o be heard al the time
            .of consideration of the report. "
                                                              (emphasis supplied)

B         As per the law laid down in Bhagwant Singh 's case (supra), the issuance
    of a notice by the Magistrate tQ._ the informant at the time of consideration
    of the final report is a "must". This binding precedent, which is the law of
    the land, has not been followed by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate and was
    wrongly ignored by the revisional court also.

C         The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that since the CBI
    had issued a notice to the appellant, it should be deemed to be sufficient
    compliance with the requirement of law does not appeal to us. In the first
    place the issuance of notice by the CBI to the appellant was not a substitute
    for the notice which was required to be given by the Magistrate in terms of
    the judgment in Bhagwant Singh 's case (supra). The CBI also did not issue
D   any fresh notice to UPSC before it resubmitted th final report to the learned
    Magistrate on February 24, 1995. Learned Magistrate could not in any event
    'delegate' to the investigating agency its function of issuing notice. Moreover,
    when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must
    be done in that manner and in no other manner. That apart, we find that the
E   order of the learned Magistrate accepting the closure report suffers from
    another serious infirmity.

         The appellant had communicated to the Director, CBI certain defects in
  the investigation on January 23, 1995 and had pointed out as many as six
  short comings necessitating reinvestigation but the CBI did not bring that
F fact to the notice of the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate while submitting the
  final report on February 24, 1995 before the Magistrate decided to accept the
  final report submitted by the CBI and close the file on March 16, 1995. It was,
  to say the I.east, improper on the part of the investigating officer of the CBI
  to have withheld a vital document dated January 23, 1995, addressed to the
G Director, CBI which communication in our view was in the nature of a "protest
  petition", from the learned Magistrate while resubmitting the report on February
  24, 1995. In all fairness, the investigating agency should have brought that
  communication to the notice of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before
  resubmitting the final report for its acceptance. The withholding of vital
  information from the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while resubmitting the
H final report along with various documents on February 24, 1995, for reasons
                    U.P.S.C. v. S. PAPAIAH [DR. ANAND, J.]                        65
  best known to the investigating officer, has created a doubt in our minds             A
  about' the fairness on the part of the investigating officer while undertaking
  the investigations. Had the contents of the communication of the appellant
··dated January 23, 1995 been brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate,
  the possibility that he may not have agreed to drop the proceedings cannot
  be ·ruled out. This 'lapse', deliberate or inadvertent, also renders the order of     B
 'March 16, 1995 bad.

       Th~· appellant brought the contents of its communication dated January
 23, 1995 to the notice of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate through its
 Misc. Petition No. 2040 ·of 1995 seeking "reinvestigation" but the learned
 Magistrate, rejected the petition vide order dated November 4, 1995 observing          C
 that "rightly or v.:rongly that Court had passed ah order and Jt had no
 power to ·review the earlier order". Here again the learned Magistrate fell
 into an error .. He was not required to,,"review" his order. He could have
 ordered "further investigation" into the case. It appears . that the learn~d
 Metropolitan Magistrate over-looked the provisions of Section 173 (8) which            D
 have been ,enacted to take care of such like situations also. That provision
 reads :
                           •
              "173 (8) - Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude
          further investigation in respec-t of an offence after a report under sub-
          section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon              E
          such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains
          further evidence, oral or doc_:µmentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate
          a further report or reports regarding such evid.en_ce in 'the form
          prescribed; and the provisions of sub sections (2) to (6) shall, as far
        · as may be, apply' in relation to such report or reports as they apply         F
          in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."

The Magistrate could, thus in exercise of the powers under section 173(8) Cr.
P.C. direct the CBI to "further investigate" the case and collectfurther evidence
keeping in view the objections raised by the appellant to the investigation             G
arid the 'new' report to be submitted by the investigating officer would be
governed by sub-section (2) to (6) of section 173 Cr. P.C. -The learned
Magistrate, failed to exercise ·the jurisdiction vested in him by law and his
order dated November 4, 1995 cannot be sustained.

       The learned Sessions Judge also committed an error in dismissing the             H
    66                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A revision petition filed by the appellant. He also failed to take into consideration
    the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. The reivsional Court also committed
    errors on questions of fact. The learned Sessions Judge erroneously observed
    that notice regarding the filing of final report had been issued to the appellant
    along with a copy of the final report calling upon it to file objections. On facts
B   these observations are incorrect. Neither any notice was issued to the appellant
    by the Court nor was the appellant ever called upon to file objections to the
    final report by the Court. Even in the notice issued by the CBI on December
    14, 1994, for whatever it is worth, the UPSC was not called upon to file
    objections, if it so desired. Besides the learned Sessions Judge also failed to
    consider the effect of withholding by the investigating agency of the
c   "objections" of the appellant contained in its communication dated January
    23, 1995 at the time of resubmission of the closure report in February 1995.
    The learned Sessions Judge, thus, failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction
    properly and his order dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant
    in the established facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained.
D
          Thus, for what we have said above we are of the opinion that the
    learned Magistrate was not justified in accepting the final report of the CBI
    and closing the case without any notice to the appellant and behind its back.
    The order of the learned Magistrate dated March 16, 1995 closing the case
E   and of November 4, 1995 dismissing the petiiion filed by the appellant as well
    as the order of the learned Sessions judge dated March 8, 1996 dismissing
    the revision petition are set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned
    Metropolitan Magistrate for its disposal in accordance with law. The learned
    Metropolitan Magistrate shall, in the larger public interest to ensure the purity
F   of the examination conducted by the UPSC for All India Services, to select
    the best talent, issue directions under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. to the CBI to
    further investigate the case and collect further evidence keeping in view the
    points raised by the appellant in its communication addressed to the Director,
    CBI dated January 23, 1995 (supra) (treating it as a 'protest petition') and then
    proceed further in the matter. It would be appropriate that further investigation
G   to be carried out by the CBI under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. is directed to be
    carried out by an officer, other than the officer who had earlier investigated
    the case and filed the final report seeking closure -of the case. The learned
    Metropolitan Magistrate shall issue directions to that effect also to the
    investigating agency when calling upon them to undertake further investigation
H   under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. The CBI shall be directed to complete the
                 U.P.S.C. v. S. PAPAIAH [DR. ANAND, J.]                  67
investigation expeditiously and proceed in the matter in accordance with law   A
in the light of the observations made by us above.

      Before parting with the case, we wish to clarify that nothing said
hereinabove shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits
of the complaint filed by the appellant.
                                                                               B
      The appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed but without any order
as to costs.

S.V.K.I.                                                   Appeal allowed.