Investigating officer's statutory opinion governs prosecution referral, while the court alone decides acceptance of the final police report.

The statutory opinion on whether sufficient material exists to proceed against an accused lies with the investigating officer, reflected in the SP's report in the CBI set-up, and superior officers may supervise but not substitute that function. A lone dissent based on legal interpretation did not create a genuine internal difference warranting reference to the Attorney General, because the investigation team and law officers were otherwise aligned in favour of prosecution. The collected investigation material is not itself legal evidence; the court alone decides whether to accept the police report. The CVC's advice was treated as advisory only, and the full material with the SP's report had to be placed before the Special Judge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Director, CBI could refer the matter to the Attorney General despite no real inter se difference of opinion in the CBI hierarchy, and whether the investigating team's material and the SP's report had to be placed before the Special Judge under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The final opinion on whether there is sufficient material to send the accused for trial belongs to the officer in charge of the police station, and in the CBI set-up that function is reflected in the SP's report. Superior officers may supervise, but they cannot substitute the investigating officer's statutory function. Where the investigating team and law officers were ad idem in favour of prosecution, a lone dissent based on legal interpretation at a stage not contemplated by the Code did not create a genuine internal difference warranting reference to the Attorney General. The material collected in investigation is not legal evidence, and the court alone decides whether to accept or reject the police report. The Court also treated the CVC's advice as only advisory and not binding.

Conclusion: The reference to the Attorney General was unwarranted, and the entire material collected by CBI with the SP's report had to be placed before the concerned court or Special Judge for decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The investigation had to proceed in accordance with the statutory scheme, with the judicial forum retaining the final control over acceptance of the police report and commencement of trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The formation of opinion on whether sufficient material exists to proceed against an accused is a statutory function of the investigating officer, subject to supervisory control but not substitution by superior executive or legal opinion, and the court alone decides the acceptability of the final police report.

---