SALIGRAM AHIR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application at the instance of the accused-petitioner, Saligram Ahir, is for quashing the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 1574 of 1978 (the case being subsequently numbered as G. R. 922 of (1979) pending in the court or learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fourteenth Court, Calcutta.

(2.) On 24/6/78, a petition was filed in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for sending it to the 0. C., Burrabazar P. 5. to investigate into the complaint under section 156 (3} Cr. P.C. That written petition contained allegation of offences under sections 448, 144, 1 50, 506, 427 and 114. i. P. C. That petitioner was sent by the learned Chief MetropolitanT Magistrate, Calcutta on 24.6.78 to the O.C., Burrabazar, P.S. for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. On the basis of that petition, a F. I. R. was drawn up on 28/6/78 under Sees. 448/144/150/427/506/114. I. P. C. against the accusedpetitioner, Saligram Ahir, and four others. The accused-petitioner, Saligram, and two others were produced in custody in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 29/6/78 and were released on bail, Subsequently, challan was submitted by the police against the accused-petitioner on 26/3/79 under section 341, I. P. C. There was a prayer for discharge of the other accused persons of the case. Accordingly, four other accused persons were discharged on 26/3/79. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta took cognizance of the offence under See. 341, I. P. C. against the accused-petitioner on 26/3/79 and sent the case to Shri K. K. Kundu, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fourteenth Court, Calcutta for disposal. Four witnesses were examined and cross-examined in the case by 13/7/81 and the case was fixed for P. Ws. on 24/9/81. In the meantime, this revisional application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in the G. R. Case No. ]574 of 1978 on 21/9/81 on the ground that the cognizance taken in this case was not proper for violation of the mandatory provisions in section 167 (5), Cr. P. C.

(3.) Mr. Sanyal, appearing for the accused, petitioner, bas argued that as the case was triable as a summons case and as the charge-sheet was submitted in this case on 26/3/79 after expiry of about nine months from 28/6/78, when the accused petitioner was arrested, with out any order of the learned Magistrate for continuation of investigation beyond the period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused-petitioner the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta on 26.3.79 is illegal and the proceedings of the G. R. case are to be quashed. In support of this contention, Mr. Sanyal has referred to the case of Jay Sankar Jha v. State1 and the case of Ram Kumar v. State2 It is now well-settled, in view of these two Division Bench decisions of this Court, that where, in a summons case, the investigation continues beyond the period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused it is obligatory on the Magistrate to stop further investigation, even though no objection is raised in the matter by the accused. On the basis of these two Division Ben.ch decisions of this Court, the proceedings in the G. R. case No. 1574 of 1978 (the case being subsequently numbered as G. R. Case No. 922 of 1979) are to be quashed, provided the case was triable as a summons case when the petition under section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. was filed in the court of the learned Additional Chiief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 24/6/78. Mr. Sanyal has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar2 to the effect that so long as the initial investigation continues in respect of a case exclusively triable by a Magistrate as a summons case, section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. will operate even though subsequent investigation discloses that the case is a case triable under the warrant procedure. The contention of Mr. Sanyal is that in view of this Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram, Kumar2 the proceedings of the G. R. case are to be quashed, even though the challan has been filed subsequently in the case under section 341, I. P. C. This contention cannot be accepted. In the case of Ram Kumar3 the case, which was initially registered by the ponce under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Anti-Profiteering Act, 1958, was triable as a summons case. Subsequently, in that case there was an application by, the Investigating Officer to add an offence, under section 7 (1) (a) (11) of the Essential Commodities Act. This application was allowed by the learned Magistrate. The accused of that Case was arrested on 23/12/78 and investigation of that case was not concluded within a period of six months from that date. As such, it was held in the case of Ram Kumar that subsequent disclosure of a case triable as a warrant case, Tduring investigation, does not alter the position that if the case, when at first registered by the police, was triable as a summons case, further investigation in the case was to be stopped by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the mandatory provision in section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. It was also held in the case of Ram Kumar that any direction for continuation of the investigation of such a case, initially triable as a summons case and subsequently turning out to be a warrant case during investigation, after the statutory period of six months mentioned in section 167 (5), Cr. P. C., will be without jurisdiction.