STATE OF ORISSA Vs. ABDUL NASHIRI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the information by one Choudhury Das, Constable No. S/107 of the 7th Battalion, O.S.A.P., the Inspector in-charge, Capital Police Station registered a case No. 480/84 on 31/10/1984 under section 341/323, Indian Penal Code and directed the Sub-Insnector Shri A.F. Khan to take up investigation. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested one Abdul Nashiri Khan on 14/11/1984 and released him on bail. The said Abdul Nashiri Khan filed a petition under section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 15/5/1985 with a prayer to direct the stoppage of further investigation on the ground that the case being a summons case and the investigation having not been completed within a period of six months from the date of his arrest, was not to continue without permission of the Court.

(2.) On receipt of the said petition from the accused the Court called for a report from the Officer in - charge, Capital P.S. on the said petition but the Officer in-charge of the Capital P.S. incharge of investigation did not make any report as was required by the Court and on the other hand filed the charge-sheet on 28-6-1985 against all the four accused persons. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar who was in seisin of the case by his order dated 18-7-1985 refused to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted in the case holding that he was incompetent to direct initiation of a judicial proceeding upon an illegal charge-sheet submitted in the case as the charge-sheet was not filed within a period of six months and passed order abating the proceeding. Against this order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar passed in G.R. Case No. 2149 of 1984 the State of Orissa has preferred this criminal revision.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of Orissa has submitted that the continuance of investigation and filing of a charge-sheet in the Court are two different things and even though section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure precludes the Investigating Officer to make further investigation beyond a period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused in a summons case without the permission of the Court, it does not bar the prosecution to submit the charge-sheet beyond period of six months as the charge-sheet can be lawfully filed in time within a period of six months according to section 468 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is urged by him that the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand and should be quashed since he was in wrongful apprehension that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a chargesheet and to take cognizance of the case if the same was filed beyond a period of six months. It is argued on behalf of the accused by Mr. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the accused that if the investigation is not complete within a period of six months and continued thereafter without the premission of the Court, the entire investigation will be deemed to be illegal and any chargesheet filed on the basis of such an investigation would be an illegal one and no cognizance should be taken by Court on such a charge-sheet. The point needs close scrutiny.