STATE Vs. RATAN GARG ALIAS AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision u/s. 482 of the Cr. P.C. the accused petitioners have challenged the entire proceeding in Special Court Case No. 18/94 dated 11-8-94 pending before the court of the Ld. Special Judge under the EC Act, Jalpaiguri for violation of the provision u/s. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act and Sec. 8 of the Anti Profiteering Act. A police case was lodged being Jalpaiguri (Sadar) P. S. Case No. 82/94 dated 10-8-94. Seizure was made and on the basis of the Police Case the Special Court case was started. From the record it appears that the accused No. l Nakul Ch. Das was produced before the court from custody on 12-8-94, while accused No. 2, Ratan Kr. Garg surrendered before the court on 16-8-94. The investigation was started and ultimately a charge-sheet was submitted on 13-2-95 before the Ld. Special Judge.

(2.) Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. De, Ld. Advocate, contended that after the lapse of 6 months, as contemplated in Sec. 167(5) of the Cr. P.C., as amended, the accused-petitioners are entitled to an order of stoppage of investigation and discharge from the case. In support of his submission, Mr. De, relied on a Special Bench decision in the case of Shaktisadhan Majhi v. The State, reported in (1993) 2 Cal HN 154, wherein it has been held by the Special Bench that sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 167 of the Cr. P.C. as substituted by W. B. State Amendment Act, 1988 has got restrospective operation and would govern all investigations initiated before the commencement of the said sub-Sec. The cognizance taken of an offence on the basis of any investigation continued and a charge-sheet submitted beyond the period specified in that sub-Sec. and the trial thereafter without any order from the Magistrate for the continuation of investigation beyond the period is bad and void. He also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jnan Prakash Agarwalla v. The State, reported in 1992 Cal Cri LR 28, where the Division Bench has held, inter alia, that the special court is empowered to impose punishment up to 2 years. All the powers of a Magistrate u/s. 167 of the Cr. P.C. without reservation has been conferred on the Special Court. So, the provision of sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 167 will apply with all its intent and purpose. Mr. De, also relied upon a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Subrata Patra v. Director of Panchay reported in 1995 Cri LJ 115, wherein it has been held that the period of 6 months starts from the date of arrest of the accused. On behalf of the State, Mr. Aloke Roy Chowdhury contended that though the case record was requisitioned from the I.O. that has not been supplied to him and in the absence of the case he cannot argue. He hastened to add that upon his prayer, the Court granted him time to produce the Case Diary.

(3.) Having heard the submissions of the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and considering the materials on record, I find that the charge-sheet. has been submitted long after the period of 6 months and benefit of Sec. 167(5) will apply in the instant case under the E.C. Act. In such circumstances, I find merit in this revisional application. The investigation is, accordingly, stopped and the accused-petitioners be discharged from the case. The order of taking cognizance being order No. 7 dated 8-3-95 is hereby set aside so far the petitioners are concerned. Application allowed.