Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are accused of offences under Ss 55(a) and 67(b) of the Abkari Act. Admittedly the procedure for summons case has to be followed in the trial for these offences. The accused were arrested on 8-6-1981 Charge sheet was filed in court only on 5-12-1983 The accused therefore filed an application in the lower court for their discharge contending that there is a violation of S.167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there was no jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution. The court below held that want of "sanction" by the court as contemplated in the provision is only a irregularity and when once cognizance has been taken, the proceedings can continue. Challenging this order, and praying for quashing of the entire proceedings, the petitioners have come up under S.482 to this court. S 167(5) reads thus: "If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary " 2. The Code provides a quick and simple procedure for the trial of a summons case. It also prescribes that the investigation should be concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested. Investigation shall stop at the end of this period and the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation. Investigation can continue after the prescribed period of six months only when the Magistrate, for special reasons to be recorded, and, in the interests of justice, directs continuation of the investigation. It admits of no doubt therefore that sub-clause (5) of S.167 is mandatory, affects the jurisdiction to continue investigation, and statutorily prescribes the period during which alone investigation can be conducted. Just as the Police cannot continue investigation after the lapse of six months from the date of arrest of the accused in a summons case, so also, the court cannot take cognizance of the case on the basis of an investigation continued thereafter. Just as the Police cannot continue investigation after the lapse of six months from the date of arrest of the accused in a summons case, so also, the court cannot take cognizance of the case on the basis of an investigation continued thereafter. When there is a statutory termination of the investigation, prosecution which is a continuation of the investigation cannot also proceed. The cognizance taken subsequently in violation of S.167(5) does not validate the investigation continued after the statutory period. 3. I am thus in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Calcutta High Court in Ram Kumar v. State (1981 Crl. L. J.1288) and in Jay Sankar Jha v. State (1982 Crl. Q. 744) and by the Madras High Court in Jagannathan v. State (1983 Crl. L.J. 1748). In the result the whole proceedings in this case before the lower court have to be set aside and are thus quashed.