IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49662 of 2007 1. RAMBILASH YADAV SON OF SRI SURAT LAL YADAV 2. Ankit Anand son Sri Siyaram Yadav Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 28.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek quashing of the first information report registered as Sakara P.S. Case No. 144 of 2007 under Section 419, 420/34 of the Penal Code pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. . The allegations are that at the B.Sc. Agriculture examination being held on 8.6.2007 in Tirhut Agricultural College, Dholi, Muzaffarpur, petitioner no. 1, who was a candidate, was found absent and was being represented by petitioner no. 2, who was sitting on his behalf in the examination. Petitioner no. 2 admittedly gave in writing that he was appearing on behalf of petitioner no. 1 on that date in the examination hall. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation in the Police case by the Sub-Inspector of Police was not competent in view of Section 12 of the Bihar Conduct of Examinations Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟. He next contends that the matter could not be tried before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in view of Section 11 of the Act. Sections 11 & 12 of the Act reads as follows : 2 “11. Nature of the offence and trial – Offences committed under the Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable, and shall be disposed of through the procedure of summary trial by executive magistrates. 12. Investigation of case – The investigation of cases under the provisions of this Act, will be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.” It is fairly submitted that investigation of the case is still continuing. If that be so, the investigation done up-till-now allegedly by the Sub-Inspector of Police may at best be procedural irregularity, which shall not be sufficient for invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When the investigation is still pending and the statutory requirements of Section 12 of the Act can still be complied with, it cannot be urged that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court directs that the investigation into the case shall be immediately taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned in accordance with Section 12 of the Act. That first information report may have been placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the prosecution before him was not maintainable. The Police investigation against the petitioners is already pending. The question of jurisdiction and place of trial will arise only after the Police investigation is completed. 3 This Court, therefore, directs that no sooner that the police report is submitted under Section 12 of the Act, the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall proceed to comply with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act by forwarding the records to the concerned Executive Magistrate, who will be liable to dispose it off in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act. The application is disposed in the aforesaid terms. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)