SAMIR KR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application arises out of an application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. P.C. and is directed against the order dated 24.8.93 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) at Hooghly Sadar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1407 of 1992 setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 22nd July. 1992 discharging the petitioner in view of section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in G.R. Case No. 291 of 1989 arising out of Mogra P.S. Case No. 59 dated 24th March, 1989.

(2.) It is clear that in this case the accused person surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 2.5.89 and the case was started under sections 408, 466 and 120B I.P.C. So, the investigation had to be completed and chargesheet submitted within 2.5.92. But, unfortunately, for the prosecution, no charge-sheet was submitted within the stipulated time and the learned Magistrate by an order dated 22nd July, 1992 was pleased to record an order discharging the accused person from the case and the stopping of further investigation. Against that order an application under section 167(5) Cr. P.C. was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly, for vacating the order extending the period of investigation. The learned District Judge has been pleased to hold that the learned Magistrate by his order dated 4.1.92 was competent to extend the time for filing of chargesheet till 12.5.92 and again on 12.5.92 the learned Magistrate was within his competence to extend the time till 1.10.92. The learned Sessions Judge also independently considered the matter from mother angle and was pleased to bold that it was a fit case where he should exercise his jurisdiction under section 167(6) of the Cr. P.C. and he, accordingly, extended the period as prayed for by the State.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the revisionist has come before this revision. His main contention is that the learned District Judge was wrong on both the counts.