RATANLAL GARG ALIAS AGARWAL Vs. STATE

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 Id. 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. 1 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, Id. Advocate, contended that after the lapse of 6 months, as contemplated in section 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 Majihi & Ors. v. The State, reported in 1993(2) Cal. High Court Notes, page 154, wherein it has been held by the Special Bench that subsection (5) of section 167 of the Cr. P.C. as substituted by W.B. State Amendment Act, 1988 has got retrospective 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 chargesheet submitted beyond the period specified in that sub-sec. and the trial there after 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 Jhan Prakash Agarwalla v The State, reported in 1992 C Cr. L. R (Cal) P. 28, where the Division Bench has held, inter alia, that the special court is empowered to impose punishment upto 2 years. All the powers of a Magistrate under section 167 of the Cr. P. C. without reservation has been conferred on the Special Court. So, the provision of sub-section (5) of section 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 & Ors. v. Director of Panchayet & Ors. reported in 1995 Crl. L. J. 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 Id. Advocates appearing for the parties and considering the materials on record, I find that the chargesheet has been submitted long after the period of 6 months and benefit of section 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 succeeds