ROVINDERPAL SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the true import and significance of sub-sec. (5) of S. 167, Cri. P.C. requires to be ascertained in this petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner was accused of offence under Ss. 279/304-A, Penal Code. The first information in that regard was registered at Police Station Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The petitioner was arrested on 14-1-1984. The investigating agency prepared a challan for filing it in Court and handed it over to the concerned District Attorney. On 11-10-1984, the challan was received back by the investigation on his raising some objections. On 13-10-1984, an application for grant of permission to investigate further was made to the concerned Magistrate under the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of S. 167, Cr. P.C. On that date itself, the permission was granted. After completing investigation, the challan was presented on 20-10-1984. The petitioner challenged the continuance of proceedings on the plea that he could not be put to trial beyond a period of six months from the date of his arrest for it was in a summons case he was sought to be tried. The learned Magistrate in the presence of the grant of permission in favour of the investigation dt. 13-10-1984 dismissed the application, which has given rise to the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court. The provision in question is in the following terms : -

(3.) This provision has engaged attention of the Courts in the country with opinions diversified. To begin with, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Ram Kumar v. State, 1981 Cri LJ 1288, took the view that the Magistrate could permit continuance of investigation beyond the period of six months only before the expiry of six months and any direction for continuation after the statutory period would be without jurisdiction. Then again the same Division Bench in Jay Sankar Jha v. State, 1982 Cri LJ 744, in furtherance of its earlier view, observed that where in a summons case, the investigation continues beyond the period of six months from the date of arrest, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to stop further investigation and the accused is not required to raise any such objection. It was further observed that an illegality would remain an illegality and the delay or failure on the part of the accused to point out the same will not make it otherwise the question of prejudice to the accused being totally irrelevant. Sequally, the Bench took the view that cognizance taken by the Magistrate in contravention of such provisions was bad in law and the subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction.