laid. If the investigation is over, that must result in a final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. If the intention of the Legislature was that the offending acts must be found to have been committed, and that it must be revealed in a final report, there was no difficulty for making it clear in sub-clause (iii) of clause (p) of Section 2 of the KAAPA. On the other hand, the specific expression “investigation” is used in sub-clause (iii). The expression “enquiry” is also used, to our mind, as in ordinary parlance. There cannot be any enquiry by a police officer, if it is an “inquiry”, as defined in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, we are of the view that the word “enquiry” is used in sub-clause (iii) of clause (p) to mean that after making sufficient enquiries, the Investigating Officer is satisfied that the person concerned has committed the offence mentioned in clause (t) of Section 2. In other words, to found an order of detention on the ground that the person concerned is a “known-rowdy”, it is not necessary that the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. should be filed in the cases concerned. It is sufficient, if investigation is pending and on
