PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. PRATAP REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The specific question that falls for consideration in this revision case is

(2.) The question arises under the following circumstances :The Station House Officer, Cumbum, filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed on 13-7-1983. The petitioner accused was arrested on 13-7-1983 itself and was released on bail on the same day. The charge sheet was filed in the court on 18-4-1984. The trial commenced and during the course of the trial the accused filed an application seeking discharge on the ground that the charge sheet and the trial are vitiated inasmuch as the investigation went beyond the period of six months, contrary to Sec. 167 (5) Cr.P.C. and consequently the charge sheet which is part and parcel of such illegal investigation, cannot be entertained and the trial also is vitiated. The learned Magistrate, relying on a decision of this court in S.M. Hussain vs. State of Andhra Pradesh held that the proceedings in the case are vitiated for lack of permission by the Magistrate to continue the investigation under Section 167 (5) Cr.P,C. and for failure to file the police report within six months from the date ot arrest of the accused. Questioning the said order, the Public Prosecutor has filed this revision.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the State that the investigation conducted beyond six months without the permission of the Magistrate does not automatically disentitle the police from filing the charge sheet and that any illegality or irregularity in the investigation does not invalidate or vitiate the taking of cognizance of the offence and the subsequent proceedings and that the view taken by this Court in S.M. Hussain's case (supra) is contrary to law.