the recovery of opium from the possession of the petitioner and his said co-accused, the cognizance is taken against the petitioner so as to put him to the trial after the framing of the charges. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that the Court below has declined to rely upon the said enquiry report qua the innocence of the petitioner and has, rather, taken the cognizance against him on the basis of the material as available on the file after the presentation of the Challan. It is well settled that though the Court is not supposed to call upon the police to submit the charge-sheet against an accused but at the same time, it is under no obligation to accept the police report and is well within its power to disagree with the same and to take cognizance against the accused on the basis of the material available on the record after the presentation of the Challan/Charge-sheet on completion of the investigation. 9. The observations, as made by the Co-ordinate Bench in Ranbir Singh (supra), do not further the cause of the petitioner in the present case because the same have been made while deciding the bail petition and moreover, in Para No.14 therein, it has, rather, been observed that “ when the trial Court was seized of the matter regarding consideration of the charge, it was competent to take cognizance and to summon the petitioner to face the trial and since the application, as moved by the police under Section 169 Cr.P.C., was dismissed and the charges against the co-accused were framed by a composite order, the illegality in not having immediately acted in terms of the said provisions, lost significance ”. In the instant case also, the application as moved by the petitioner has been dismissed while taking the cognizance against him simultaneously vide the impugned
