Judgment : Gobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J. This revisional application is directed against the orders dated 23.11.83 and 26.11.83 passed by Mr. A.K. Seth, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah in connection with P-3 Case No. 73 dated 27.5.83 under S. 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and S. 46(a) of the Bengal Excise Act, discharging the accused-opposite Party Narbahadur Chettry and Stopping all further investigation of the case as well as rejecting the application of the Excise Department for taking cognizance of the offence against the aforesaid opposite party. 2. The case of the petitioner, the State of West Bengal is that the Officer-in-Charge Narkeldanga Police Station held a search on 26.5.83 at Flat No 18 Block 'C' of the Narkeldanga Police Estate and recovered 26.0 litres of the I. D. Liquor and also some quantity of fermented wash from a room over there owned and possessed by Narbabadur Chettry. The detecting Police Officer however, effected his arrest on 27.5.83 and released him on P.S. bail. On 23.11.83 when the aforesaid case was taken up in Court there was no report before the learned Magistrate from the Investigating Officer of the Excise Department inasmuch as the Investigating officer had mistakingly noted the date of hearing of the case to be 26.11.83 in place of 23.11.83. On the same date i.e. to say on 23.11.83 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah straightway discharged the accused Naibabadur Chettry by observing as follows :- "No report is received from the Excise Authority, 180 days have already passed. No remand prayed Stop further investigation accused is discharged". 3. On 26.11.83 the Law Officer of the Excise Department filed an application before the Court with a prayer that the congizance of the offence might be taken. This application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed on 23.11.83 and 26.11.83 the State of West Bengal has preferred the instant revisional application. 4. 3. On 26.11.83 the Law Officer of the Excise Department filed an application before the Court with a prayer that the congizance of the offence might be taken. This application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed on 23.11.83 and 26.11.83 the State of West Bengal has preferred the instant revisional application. 4. Shri Mahata, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to S. 167(5) Cr P.C. which runs as follows:- "If in any case triable by a Magistrate as summous case, the investigation is not concluded within the period of 6 months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate for special reasons and in the interest of justice that continuation of the investigation beyond the period of 6 months is necessary." 5. Shri Mahato has reminded us repeatedly that the accused-opposite party was never arrested on more suspicion under S. 41 Cr, P.C. and that as a matter of fact 26.0 litres of I D. Liquor and some quantity of fermented wash were actually found out from Narbahadur who was a Police Constable attached to the Bomb Squard, Detective Department, Calcutta. Shri Mahato has further contended that possession of the said quantity of liquor etc. is an offence punishable for long 5 years and therefore, is not triable as a summons case within the meaning of the wordings as used under S. 167(5), Cr P. C. 6. The second plank of Mr. Mahto's argument is that at any rate the learned Magistrate was not justified in discharging the accused on the ground that 180 days had already expired Shri Mahato has drawn our attention to a case reported in AIR 1978 SC (Tamal Lahiri v. Kumar P.N. Tagore) page 180 and has contended on that score that 180 days are not at all equivalent to 6 months. 7. We have carefully perused the record and have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case, Narbahadur was arrested on 27.5.83. The accused was discharged on 23.11.83. This means and implies that the accused was discharged within the period of 6 calendar months from the date of arrest. 7. We have carefully perused the record and have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case, Narbahadur was arrested on 27.5.83. The accused was discharged on 23.11.83. This means and implies that the accused was discharged within the period of 6 calendar months from the date of arrest. Shri Batai Chandra Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the accused opposite party has contended by saying that the Supreme Court case does not expressly state how and in what manner the calculation is to effected while construing the period of 6 months. Sri Roy wants us to justify the order passed by the learned Magistrate by saying that the learned Magistrate did no wrong in discharging the accused immediately after 180 days flam the date of arrest. But in our opinion, the Supreme Court is quite emphatic that the expression "6 months" win mean and imply "6 months according to British Calendar". On this calculation it becomes clear that the order of discharge dated 23.11.83 is bad in law inasmuch as 6 months according to British Calendar bad not yet elapsed since the date of arrest on 27.5.83. 8. Shri Balai Chandra Roy has sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the accused had been arrested merely on suspicion under S. 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that therefore, the accused was rightly discharged seeing that no police report was available within the prescribed period. We have already seen that according to Shri Mahalo, the accused was never arrested on bare suspicion and that as a matter of fact a very considerable quantity of I.D Liquor and wash were found out from the possession of the Constab1e. Indeed in our opinion Shri Mahato is well justified in arguing that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for ends of justice, it was just and proper that the Excise Department's application for taking cognizance of the offence by the learned Magistrate ought not to have been thrown away by the learned Magistrate. We have been impressed by the aforesaid argument advanced by Shri Mahato and we are of opinion that the impugned orders dated 23.11.83 and 26.11.83 should be set aside. 9. In the result, the Revisional Application is allowed on contest and the and the Rule is made absolute. We have been impressed by the aforesaid argument advanced by Shri Mahato and we are of opinion that the impugned orders dated 23.11.83 and 26.11.83 should be set aside. 9. In the result, the Revisional Application is allowed on contest and the and the Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders dated 23.11.83 and 26.11.83 are set aside and the application of the Excise Department for taking cognizance of the offence against the accused opposite party is allowed. The Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to take cognizance of the alleged offence and to proceed with the case thereafter in accordance with law. N.G. Choudhuri, J : I agree Rule made absolute.