STATE Vs. JAI BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This and connected matters raise common points of law and will be decided by the same order. Having read in the press about the acquittal of respondent by Mr. P.R. Thakur, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his order of 13th July, 1984 in F.I.R. No.580/81, State v. Jai Bhagwan under Section 279/338/304A, I.P.C. on the ground that the investigation by police had continued beyond a period of six months without obtaining permission from the Magistrate and thus there was breach of Section 167(5) Cr.P.C., one of us (Sachar, J.) in exercise of the High Court power under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., issued notice to the State as well as the accused Jai Bhagwan, In the connected matters also the Magistrates having acquitted the accused on the same ground Delhi Administration has filed appeals against the order of release and acquittal and that is why all these matters have been heard together.

(2.) In the present, case the accused was arrested on 9th December, 1981, charge-sheet against him was instituted in the Court on 7th December, 1982. The accused was charge-sheeted for an offence for driving the truck rashly/negligently and causing death of Sh. Subash Chander, Ram Kumar and Chandan Devi and grievious hurt to Sh. Ishwar and hurt to Sh. Sohan Lal. The accused moved an application on the ground that as investigation had continued beyond a period of six months they were entitled to acquittal in view of the alleged breach having been committed of Section 167(5) of the Code. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Singh v. State, (1984) 6 Delhi Rep J. 284, accepted this plea and ordered the acquittal. It is the correctness of this view which calls for examination in the present proceedings.

(3.) Now Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Code) to be found in Chapter 12 of the Code dealing with information to the police and their powers to investigate provides that if in any case triable by a magistrate as summons case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date, on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice , the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary. Section 167(6) of the Code further provides that where an order stopping further investigation has been made under sub-section (5) the Sessions Judge may if satisfied that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub-section (5) and direct further investigation to be made into the offence. Section 173 requires that as soon as, the investigation is completed the officer incharge of the Police Station shall forward to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in a prescribed form. Chapter 14 is headed "Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings". Section 190 in Chapter XIV provides that a Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence (b) upon a police report of such facts and (c) upon information received from any person other than police officer or upon his own information.