JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Delinquent is the petitioner in this criminal revision which arises out of proceeding u/s 107, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The Officer-in-Charge of Gopalpur Police station submitted a report on 26-4-1985 to bind down the petitioner to keep peace in the locality where he described the opp. party as first party and the delinquent as the second party. On 6thJune, 1985, the learned Executive Magistrate passed the order directing the petitioner to appear on 21-6-1985 and show cause as to. why he shall not be directed to execute a bond for Rs. 500/-with one surety for the like amount to keep peace for a period of six months. After appearance of the delinquent the proceeding continued where some of the witnesses were examined and the case was posted to 16-1-1986 for further enquiry by order dated 9-1-1986. The next day, i.e., on 10-1-1986, an application was filed on behalf of the opposite party stating therein that the witnesses in this case have already been examined except the Police Officers and the first party apprehends breach of peace and danger to his life and reputation from the second party and in that view, time should be extended until final disposal of the care. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application praying to advance the date in the interest of justice obviously because the case was posted to 16-1-1986. Both the petitions contain scoring through some writings on the margin. There is no indication that copies of the petitions were served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order on that date which reads as follows : 10-1-1986: Perused the report of the A. P. P. Heard him. The A. P. P. submits that the apprehension of breach of peace continues. Hence the proceeding is extended for a period of three months from today as the trial is in process. Put up on the date fixed. Sd./- Illegible 10-1-1986 Executive Magistrate. 3. The impugned order is purported to have been passed u/s 116(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads as follows : "116. Hence the proceeding is extended for a period of three months from today as the trial is in process. Put up on the date fixed. Sd./- Illegible 10-1-1986 Executive Magistrate. 3. The impugned order is purported to have been passed u/s 116(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads as follows : "116. Inquiry as to truth of information : (1) to (5) XXX XXX XXX (6) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs : Provided that where any person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding against that person, unless terminated earlier, shall stand terminated oh the expiry of a period of six months of such detention." The plain language of the provision leaves no doubt in mind that on the expiry of six months from the commencement of the inquiry the incomplete proceeding automatically stands terminated unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing the Magistrate extends the time by otherwise directing for the same. 4. There is no dispute by either party that the proceeding would have stood terminated but for the impugned order. The basis of the special reason given in this case is the report of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and his submission in Court. On the record, there is no report of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor excepting his petition dated 10-1-1986 which reads as follows : "That the first party me Tiber filed a petition to extend the period of the case. Hence it is prayed that Hon'ble Court be pleased to advance the case in the interest of justice. Sd. Illegible 10-1-1986 A. P. P." 5. Even accepting the petition of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor read with the petition on behalf of the first party to be the report, I am not able to find any special reason why the time should be extended. The general rule under Sub-Section (6) is automatic termination of the proceeding. Direction otherwise is an exception for which special reason is to be recorded in writing by the Executive Magistrate. Interpretation of statute requires an exception to be strictly construed. The general rule under Sub-Section (6) is automatic termination of the proceeding. Direction otherwise is an exception for which special reason is to be recorded in writing by the Executive Magistrate. Interpretation of statute requires an exception to be strictly construed. The Parliament has intentionally laid down the strong guideline of special reason to be recorded in writing. The word 'special' is to be given importance since Legislature does not use a word necessarily. 6. Facing an enquiry on the allegation of being a delinquent is not the usual feature in the normal day to day life. There is no doubt that it disturbs the normal mental condition of an individual. However, in order to hive a society with peace and tranquility, Legislature envisages the proceeding u/s 107, Cr. P. C., where the proceeding is to automatically terminate, the delinquent gets himself free from the allegation and mental anxiety. There is no specific provision that the delinquent need not be heard in the matter. Therefore, any direction by the Executive Magistrate defeating the said automatic termination envisages an opportunity to the delinquent to be heard in the matter so that he, gets the opportunity to convince the Executive Magistrate that there is no reason for less to speak of special reason for passing the order by following the principle of natural justice. An Executive Magistrate is required to take into consideration the nature of the proceeding and near about the expiry of six months from the date of enquiry, he should deal with the question of extension of time to avoid automatic termination u/s 116(6) Cr. P. C. after giving the parties opportunity of being heard and, direct otherwise in case there is special reason for avoiding the automatic termination of the proceeding. 7. On perusal of the impugned order. I am satisfied that the same is vitiated on account of absence of special reasons and for violation of the principle of natural justice. 8. In the result, the, criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 10-1-1986 is quashed. Final Result : Allowed