R P S MANIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in Crl.M.P. No. 2770 of 1991 setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur, in Crl.M.P. No. 1288 of 1990 under Sec. 167(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revision petitioner herein and some others were prosecuted for offences under Secs. 337, 338, 304(A), 182, I.P.C. read with Secs. 8 and 9 of the Indian Explosives Act. The occurrence took place on 29.1.1988 and the first accused was arrested on 31.1.1988. The prosecution did not complete the investigation within six months as contemplated under Sec. 167(5), Criminal Procedure Code. The accused/revision petitioner moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur in Criminal M.P.No. 1288 of 1990 under Sec. 167(5), Criminal Procedure Code to stop the investigation. The learned Magistrate ordered to stop further investigation. As this order was intimated to the respondent police, they took up the matter in revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in Crl.M.P.No. 2770 of 1991 to set aside that order. The revision petitioner herein opposed this application and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, being satisfied that the police required further time to complete the investigation, allowed the application, setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner who was the second accused before the learned Magistrate, has come forward with this revision.

(2.) UNDER Sec. 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in summons cases the investigation should be completed within six months, unless the officer investigating the case moves before the court with sufficient reasons for extension of time for investigation, the Magistrate shall order stopping further investigation. This case admittedly is a summons case for which the maximum punishment is only two years. Therefore, the investigation should have been completed by the respondent within six months from the date of the arrest of the first accused on 31.1.1988. But the final report was not filed and, therefore, the accused himself had to move before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur, on 10.8.1990 to order for stopping the investigation.

(3.) THE learned counsel Mr. Gopinath, appearing for the revision petitioner, argues that the reasons given by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramnad, are not acceptable to permit the police for the continuation of the investigation beyond six months because the transfer of the Police Officers is a routine affair on the administrative side and that cannot be a ground for not completing the investigation within a period of six months, complying with the mandatory provisions of the Code and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not correct in permitting for the investigation beyond six months. Even though the respondent- police explained the reasons for seeking extension of time for securing the post-mortem certificates, Case Diary and the age certificates, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has not found favour of those grounds. However, the transfer of the officers alone was accepted by him to be the reasonable ground for extension of time. But, I feel that this stand taken by the learned Principal Sessions Judge does not stand to reason because it is not as if the Police Stations are without the Investigating Officers. THEre must have been some Officer in charge of the Police Station whose duty was to complete the investigation according to the directions of the Code. THErefore, the reasoning given by the Principal Sessions Judge is not correct.