JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 26th August, 1986 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Khetri. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 354-II on 7-9-1985. The petitioner was arrested on 26th November 1985 and he was also bailed out. Charge sheet against the accused was filed on 11-6-1986. The petitioner moved an application under Section 167(5) Cr PC with the prayer that the charge-sheet has been filed beyond the period of six months from the date of his arrest and in view of the provisions of Section 167(5) no case can be registered and proceeded. The submission of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Jagannathan and Ors. v. State [1983 Cr. LJ 1748] , in which the Madras High Court has held as under: "Under the statutory provision, viz., Section 167(5) there are statutory duties, one cast on the Court and the other on the Investigating Officer. For the invocation of this Sub-section, the following conditions should be satisfied: 1. The case to which this provision is to applied should be one triable by the Magistrate as a summons case; 2. The accused in that case should have been arrested; and 3. The investigation should no have been concluded within a period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused. The officer making the investigation has necessarily to move the Court before which the case is pending, for an order permitting continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months, before the Magistrate discharges his duty, which comes only after the expiry of six months. It follows that these two duties cast on these two functionaries are independent of each other. Taking into custody of a person by the Magistrate on his surrender also will come within the ambit of the term "arrest" and the period of six months will commence to be reckoned from the date of such surrender or the arrest of the accused." 4. Mr. Gupta has further cited before me the case of Calcutta High Court in Jay Shanker Jha v. State 1982 Cr LJ 744. Mr. Gupta has further cited before me the case of Calcutta High Court in Jay Shanker Jha v. State 1982 Cr LJ 744. Their Lordships held as under: "Where in a summons case, the investigation of the case was not concluded within a period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused, and no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to satisfy the Magistrate as required by Section 167(5) that for "special reasons" and in the "interest of justice" the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months was necessary, the Magistrate was bound to make an order stopping further investigation into the offence. The continuation of investigation beyond the period of six months in contravention of law, was illegal and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was bad in law and the subsequent proceeding was without jurisdiction; It could not be said that by asking the Investigating Officer to expedite investigation and by taking cognizance after the expiry of the period of six months the Magistrate had impliedly allowed the continuation of investigation, because the Magistrate has. no such competence as the investigation beyond the period of six months can only continue if the conditions laid down in Section 167(5), Cr.PC are fulfilled." 5. Mr. Gupta also cited before me the case of Babulal v. State of Rajasthan 1982 Cr. LJ 1001 , in which this court held as under: "One of the objects sought to be achieved by the new Cr.PC 1973 was to avoid delay in investigation and trial while ensuring a fair trial to the accused on the principles of natural justice. It was a notorious fact that under-trials remained behind the bars for long periods even without a charge-sheet being filed against them as many of such accused were unable to furnish bail or were not granted bail. It was a notorious fact that under-trials remained behind the bars for long periods even without a charge-sheet being filed against them as many of such accused were unable to furnish bail or were not granted bail. Section 167(5) Cr.PC was enacted to avoid delay in investigation which was harmful not only to the individuals but also to the society and the under-trials were languishing in detention even though the accused of offences comparatively minor in nature triable as summons cases; After expiry of six months from the date of arrest , of accused in a summons case if proper care is not bestowed upon Section 167(5) and the investigation is allowed to drag beyond this period in the absence of special reasons and the interest of justice an accused would still be in detention if he was unable to furnish bail This is not warranted by law because once the investigation is stopped the accused has to be released even though he is unable to furnish bail, as the power of detention and remand under Section 167 is only while the investigation is going on. It comes to an end as soon as the charge sheet is filed or the investigation is stopped. Viewed in this context it appears that Section 167(5) is mandatory in character and it is the duty enjoined upon the Magistrate to see that no investigation is continued in a summons case beyond six months from the date of the arrest of the accused without his permission. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has cited before me the case of this court decided by my brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Sharma reported in the case of Sukhram v. State 1986 RLR 368, in which this Court has held that filing of charge sheet by the Investigating Officer beyond six months of the arrest of the accused is not illegal and the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence. 7. Section 167(5) Cr.PC finds place in Chapter-XII, regarding information to the police and their powers to investigate. 7. Section 167(5) Cr.PC finds place in Chapter-XII, regarding information to the police and their powers to investigate. Section 167(5) read as under: "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 interest of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary." 8. It is an admitted position that even Under Clause (6) the Court has jurisdiction to grant further time for investigation if the application is moved by the Investigating Agency. Investigation, submission of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance are three different matters. There is no time limit fixed for the submission of police report under Section 190(b). The investigation may be completed within six months and on the basis of the investigation so completed the police report may be submitted under Section 190(b) after the period of six months. Submission of the police report is not a part of the investigation. Taking of the cognizance is the job of the court and the Court can take cognizance on the basis of the police report within a period prescribed under Section 468 Cr.PC, I am of the view that the proceedings cannot be quashed only on the ground that the police report under Section 190(b) was submitted beyond six months. Submission of the police report is not a part of the investigation, but it is the result of the investigation and, no investigation is necessary for the submission of charge-sheet police report under Section 190(b). The investigation has already been completed earlier as such, no question of delay comes into play and Section 167(5) does not come into play at all. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that the Court was justified in taking the cognizance particularly when cognizance has been taken within the limit prescribed under Section 468 Cr.PC. The investigation has already been completed earlier as such, no question of delay comes into play and Section 167(5) does not come into play at all. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that the Court was justified in taking the cognizance particularly when cognizance has been taken within the limit prescribed under Section 468 Cr.PC. It is true that Clause (5) of Section 167 has been held mandatory by this Court provisions of Clause (6) of Section 167 are indicative of the fact that the period of six months prescribed Under Clause (5) can further be increased and further opportunity can be granted to the Investigating Agency by the Court on the submissions so made. This Clause (6) leads to the position that the vigour of Section 167(5) is reduced if the application is moved for giving further time for the investigation. In such circumstances, it will not be necessary for me to decide whether in all-cases it should be considered as mandatory or directory, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. I am not deciding this point so it is not necessary for me to take a reference on this point. I am deciding only the point that the investigation and cognizance are altogether different matters and cognizance can be taken even after the expiry of the period of six month.Order Accordingly. *******