STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MEHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that falls for determination, which is common to all the five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 4766--M, 5812--M and 6077--M of 1977 and 169--M and 293--M, of 1978 before us, is at to whether investigation of an offence would be considered complete in terms of S. 173 (2) of the Criminal P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code), although the police officer investigating the case had not received the reports of such experts as the Chemical Examiner, the Serologist, the Ballistic Expert or the Finger Print Expert etc. whose reports are made admissible in law under S. 293 of the Code, without these being proved by the said experts in the witness--box; and whether a charge--sheet minus the aforesaid documents, when submitted to a Magistrate, would qualify to be termed a police report in terms of S. 190 (1) (b) of the Code and enable the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence disclosed therein.

(2.) THE aforesaid question arises for consideration in the wake of a claim made by all the petitioners except in Criminal Misc. No. 4766--M of 1977 (for facility of reference the accused--petitioners in these petitions are referred to as the petitioners) for their release on ball in view of the proviso to sub--section (2) of S. 167 of the Code, which envisages that during the investigation a Magistrate is not competent to keep an accused in custody, police or judicial, exceeding sixty days. In other words, if in this period the investigation is not concluded, the Magistrate would have no option but to order the release of such an accused on bail.

(3.) IN Criminal Miscellaneous petitions Nos. 5812--M and 6077--M of 1977 and 169--M and 293--M of 1978, the petitioners have applied to this Court for being released in view of the proviso to sub--section (2) of S. 167 of the Code, while in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4766--M of 1977 the accused--respondents had been released by the Additional Sessions Judge in view of the application of the proviso to sub--section (2) of S. 167 of the Code to this case, and the State has challenged that order in this Court. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5812--M of 1977 came up for hearing before me and finding myself in respectful disagreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Hari Chand v. State, 1977 Cri LJ (NOC 262) p. 156, and the view taken by A. D. Koshal, A. C. J. (as my Lord the Chief Justice then was) in Criminal Misc. No. 2287--M of 1976 (Kanahiya v. State of Haryana) decided on May 12, 1976 (Punj ). I referred the matter to the larger Bench. In the wake of that reference order, the other criminal miscellaneous petitions by separate orders recorded by the learned Judges concerned, also came to be similarly referred to the larger Bench, to be dealt with along with Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5812--M of 1977, which I had referred to the larger Bench and that is how these petitions have been placed before us. A common judgment is, therefore, proposed for all the five petitions.