RAM KUMAR KESHORI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On December 23, 1978 an Inspector of Police, Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, inspected the grocery shop-cum-godown of the petitioner, Ram Kumar Keshori, at 191, R. B. C. Road, Naihati and found various infractions of the West Bengal Anti-Profiteering Act, 1958. He seized the goods found in the shop, arrested the petitioner and registered a case against him under S. 8 of the West Bengal Anti-Profiteering Act, 1958. During investigation, the Investigating Officer filed an application before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore stating that the investigation of the case also disclosed the commission of an offence under S. 7(i)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the petitioner and praying that the above section may be added to the case and further time may be granted to complete the investigation. Though the application was dated July 15, 1979 the learned Magistrate took the same for consideration on August 13, 1979, along with the objection that was raised on behalf of the petitioner to its maintainability, in view of the provision of sub-s. (5) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order passed on the same day the learned Magistrate overruled the objection of the petitioner and allowed the prayer of the Investigating Officer. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner, both under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the West Bengal Anti-Profiteering Act, 1958 on May 16, 1980 and cognisance was taken thereupon. A proceeding under S 6A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 was also initiated by the Collector of 24 Parganas for confiscation of the seized goods. Aggrieved by the institution of the above two proceedings, the petitioner moved this Court for their quashing and obtained the present Rule.

(2.) At the outset we may point out that the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the proceeding under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is wholly misconceived. The above proceeding is separate and independent of the prosecution that has been instituted against the petitioner and validity of the former cannot be challenged with that of the latter in one and the same application. Moreover in this criminal revisional jurisdiction, the proceeding under S. 6A cannot be challenged as the Collector who has initiated the proceeding cannot be said to be functioning as an inferior Criminal Court. In either view of the matter therefore, the prayer for quashing the proceeding under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is hereby rejected and the interim order passed by this Court, while issuing the Rule, staying the said proceeding is hereby vacated.

(3.) In assailing the institution of the prosecution, Mr. Balai Roy, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule, urged that the Investigating Officer filed his application beyond the period of six months from the date the petitioner was arrested, and since the case which was then being investigated was triable according to summons procedure, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain or allow the said prayer in view of the express provision of S. 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Roy, in such a case, the Magistrate was statutorily obligated to stop the investigation after the expiry of six months, in absence of any prayer prior to such expiry for extending the time for completion of the investigation. Mr. Roy submitted that on the expiry of the said period, the learned Magistrate became functus officio, and he was not entitled to entertain the prayer of the Investigating Officer, or to allow the same even on the ground that the investigation disclosed a case triable as a warrant case, namely under S. 7((1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Mr. Sarojesh Mukherjee, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State in his usual fairness, submitted that since there was nothing on record to indicate that the Investigating Officer made the prayer before the expiry of six months as contemplated under S. 167(5) he was unable to support the order of the learned Magistrate.