BIREN PRAMANIK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these four revisional applications (CRR 506/1996, CRR 423/1997, CRR 302/1997, CRR 303/1997) a common question was raised as to whether cognizance could be taken on the charge-sheet filed on the basis of investigation made beyond the time limit fixed by section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended in the State of West Bengal by the Code of Criminal Procedure (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1988 which came into force with effect from 2nd May, 1989.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the State that in view of the principle adopted by the Apex Court in Durgesh Saha v. Bimal Chandra Saha (1996 Cri LJ 1137), the Court below was justified in taking the cognizance on the basis of the chargesheet. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed reliance on another Division Bench judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1993)3 SCC 288 (State of West Bengal v. Falguni Dutta & Anr.) in support of the contention that the investigation beyond the time limit fixed by section 167(5), without any order of extension by the Magistrate, is illegal and taking of cognizance was not justified. Accordingly, prayer was made for quashing of the proceeding.

(3.) Since there were divergent views expressed by different Benches of this Court as well as by the Apex Court and also keeping in view the decision of the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Nirmal Kanti Roy v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2322), I requested Shri Milan Mukherjee, and advocate of this Court to appear as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Mukherjee was good enough in pointing out that before the decision in Nirmal Kanti Roy's case (supra), a Special Bench of this Court in Sakti Sadhan Majhi v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1994 C.Cr. LR (Cal) 137 took the view that cognizance of the offence and the trial of an accused on the basis of investigation carried on and charge-sheet submitted beyond the period of six months without any specific order from the Magistrate was bad and void. The said Bench also took the view that without a specific order from the Magistrate for continuation of investigation beyond the statutory period, the accused immediately at the expiry of the period fixed in section 167(5) of the Code, acquired a right to be discharged from the case if the investigation was not completed and concluded within the time limit. The Special Bench was also of the view that any cognizance or trial of an offence on the basis of investigation continued and charge-sheet filed beyond the period fixed in section 167(5), without an appropriate order from the Magistrate, was illegal and void and as such, the accused was to be discharged automatically from the case.