SATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case under section 304-A, 279, 337 and 338, Indian Penal Code, which was triable as a summons case, was registered against the petitioner Satpal Singh at Police Division No. 4, Jalandhar, on February 23, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on the same day. It is alleged that although under section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') the investigation was required to be completed within six months from the date of the arrest of the petitioner, and no permission had been obtained by the police from the Magistrate to continue the investigation beyond the period of six months, statements of a number of witness were recorded by the police after the expiry of six months and the challan was presented in the Court on November 4, 1985. The petitioner has, therefrom filed this petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceeding pending before the trial court against him in pursuance of the aforesaid illegal investigation be quashed and he may be discharged.

(2.) IT may be stated here that the petitioner had filed a petition before the trial Court for his discharge on the same facts but it was declined on May 2, 1986 (Annexure P1).

(3.) THE order of the trial Magistrate dated May 2, 1986 reveals that an application under section 197(5) of the Code was moved on behalf of the State seeking permission for continuing the investigation beyond the period of six months. This application has not so far been decided by the trial Court. Both counsel agree that it is incumbent upon the trial Magistrate to decide this application. In circumstances mentioned above the trial cannot be set aside and the petitioner cannot be discharged. Resultantly this petitioner stands dismissed. The trial Court is, however, directed to decide the application under section 167(5) of the Code filed by the prosecution seeking permission to continue investigation beyond the period of six months. The parties have been directed to appear before the trial Court on September 15, 1986.