RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. an order was passed under Section 111 Cr. P. C. on 15-11-1976. What preceded this order I am not taking into consideration in this application. Proceedings continued. On 24-6-77 an application was filed by the accused under Section 116 (6) Cr. P. C. to the effect that six months time had passed, the proceedings had not been completed and therefore, they stood terminated. This application was rejected by the Magistrate on 24-6-77. Aggrieved thereby an application was filed by the applicants before the Sessions Judge under Section 116 (7) Cr. P. C. The Sessions Judge rejected that application. The case proceeded and a final order was passed by the Magistrate on 13-4-78. Aggrieved thereby an appeal was filed before the sessions Judge, Bulandshahr which has been dismissed on 15-6-78. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. The applicant's counsel has urged that in view of Section 116 (6) Cr. P. C. the Court of Magistrate before whom enquiry was pending became functus-officio since the enquiry was not completed within the period of six months. He could not extend the period of limitation after the expiry of six months. Section 116 (6) Cr. P. C. runs as follows:-

(3.) THIS revision application is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the courts below are set aside. Revision allowed.