KRISHNADEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the period of six months ordinarily prescribed for an inquiry under sub-sec. (6) of S. 116 of the Cr. P. C. 1973 be further extended beyond another six months or more, by an order of the Magistrate, is the somewhat ticklish question for an authoritative decision by the Division Bench in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and lie in a narrow compass. Proceedings under S. 107 of the Cr. P. C., 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Code') were started against the eight petitioners and the private respondents way back on the 4th June, 1980. It is averred on behalf of the petitioners that in the police report no specific overt act was alleged but a general apprehension of the breach of peace was expressed. In pursuance to the notices issued, the petitioners appeared in the court of the Magistrate on 16th June, 1980. Despite the mandate of S. 116(6), the proceedings were not completed within six months and thereupon the petitioners preferred an application for dropping the same, whilst another application by respondent 2 was made for extending its life. It is averred that though no fresh material had come on the record, the learned Magistrate extended the period of inquiry by an order dt. 15th Jan., 1981. It would appear that when the proceedings still continued to drag on, the petitioners preferred an application dt. 8th July, 1981 alleging that since a further period of six months had expired, the same must necessarily be dropped. This application was opposed by the private respondents and ultimately, by the impugned order (annexure 1) dt. 11th Aug. 1981, the learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that since the period of inquiry had been once ordered to be extended, there was no further limitation of time thereon under the Code. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal miscellaneous petition under S. 482 has been preferred.

(3.) This case had originally come up before my learned Brother, Nazir Ahmad, J., sitting singly. Before him, the issue strenuously pressed was that the extension of the period of enquiry could not go beyond a further period of six months in the light of the provisions of sub- sec. (6) of S. 116. Noticing the significance of the issue and the paucity of precedent on the point, the matter was referred for an authoritative decision by the Division Bench and that is how it is before us now.