KAILASH CHANDRA AGARWALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Validity of order dated 15 -7 -1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sundargarh permitting continuance of investigation in terms of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short, the Code') is the subject -matter of challenge.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the factual background, which is almost undisputed, is as follows : Petitioner is arrayed as an accused in a caste under Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') for alleged violation of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965 (in short, 'the Control Order') and Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (in short, 'the Declaration Order'). The proceeding was registered as Vig. G. R. Case No. 18 of 1993 in the Court of Special Judge -cum -Sessions Judge, Sundargarh. Petitioner was arrested on 21 -9 -1993 and was produced before the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh (in short, 'the SDJM') and subsequently was produced before the learned Special Judge and was released on bail. On 8 -4 -1994 an application was filed by the petitioner purported to be in terms of Section 167(5) of the Code to stop further investigation, on the ground that it was not completed within six months from the date of arrest of the petitioner. Prayer was accepted by the learned Special Judge by order dated 8 -4 -1994, by directing to stop investigation. On 4 -7 -1994 an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution, purported to be one under Section 167(5) of the Code to revoke the earlier order, by order dated 15 -7 -1994, which is the impugned order in this application, learned Special Judge accepted the prayer. It was observed that the investigation was completed on 31 -3 -1994, i.e., within the stipulated time, and when further investigation was necessary the prayer for continuance of investigation was to be accepted.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for State on the other hand supported the order and submitted that technicalities should not stand on the way of justice and even if it is accepted that investigation was not completed within the stipulated period of six months, it was open to the prosecution to seek for permission of Court to continue further investigation, which was done and has been rightly accepted by the learned Special Judge.