A. K. BHATTACHARJI, J. ( 1 ) -THIS revisional order is directed against an order passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Barasat, in Sessions Case 14-6-91. The case originally started on the basis of Gaighata P. S. case No. 11 dated 15. 3. 84 (G. R. case No. 205/84) under sections 148/149/307/325/302 I. P. C. ). There were several accused persons and they were either arrested or voluntarily surrendered before the S. D. J. M. , Bongaon on different dates. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons on 8. 3. 88. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Learned S. D. J. M. , Bongaon, on 23. 7. 88 and the case was committed to Court of Sessions and subsequently transferred for disposal before the Second Additional Judge, Barasat. ( 2 ) IN the meantime the accused persons filed an application under section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. , as amended in the State of West Bengal by Act 24 of 1988 demanding that the statutory period for the submission of the chargesheet fixed under the aforesaid section having expired the Magistrate should have stopped further investigation in the case. It was accordingly prayed that further proceedings of the case in the Sessions Court should not be continued. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the submission made by the different accused persons and after reviewing the scope of section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. held that there was nothing wrong in taking cognizance of the offence by the Learned S. D. J. M. in the circumstances of the case. He accordingly rejected the prayer of the accused and ordered that the accused persons must face trial in the Sessions Case. ( 3 ) NONE appears for the Opposite Party (State) although notice was duly served and relevant affidavit of service filed. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the accused petitioner Mr. Milan Mukherjee forcefully submits that the Learned Sessions Judge was wrong in his approach to the interpretation of section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. It appears from the Order dated 1. 2. 92 of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge that different accused persons were arrested or surrendered or appeared on different dates. The accused Gobinda Das, Bimal and Swapan were brought under arrest on 16. 3. 84. The other accused persons appeared on different dates, namely, 27. 6. 84, 30. 11. P. C. It appears from the Order dated 1. 2. 92 of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge that different accused persons were arrested or surrendered or appeared on different dates. The accused Gobinda Das, Bimal and Swapan were brought under arrest on 16. 3. 84. The other accused persons appeared on different dates, namely, 27. 6. 84, 30. 11. 84, 31. 8. 88 and 6. 9. 88. The present petitioner is Bimal Saha. The chargesheet was submitted in this case on 8. 2. 88 Mr. Milan Mukherjee argues that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the chargesheet was submitted beyond three years which was the period fixed under clause (ii) of subsection (5) of section 167, as amended in West Bengal. Mr. Mukherjee, therefore, argues that the investigation of the entire case should have been stopped by the Magistrate as soon as the aforesaid period expired as, evidently before the expiry of the period the officer making the investigation did not satisfy him that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the said period was necessary. In this respect he cites a decision of a Single Bench of this Court reported in 1992 C Cr LR (Cal) 350 (Dilip Kumar Das and Others v. The State of West Bengal ). In this case the Learned Judge had elaborately discussed the scope of application of the amended sub-section (5) of section 167, Cr. P. C. when different accused persons appeared on different dates and the period fixed for submission of chargesheet in respect of them varied accordingly. As per judgment of the Learned Judge section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. does not admit of any individualised approach and that the stopping of investigation, if any, should be in respect of the offence itself. He discussed various case laws in this connection and came to the above conclusion. The following portion of his judgment may be referred to in this connection. "it may be noticed that section 167 (5) does not admit of any individualised approach. Its application, where it applies, is rather total and composite. He discussed various case laws in this connection and came to the above conclusion. The following portion of his judgment may be referred to in this connection. "it may be noticed that section 167 (5) does not admit of any individualised approach. Its application, where it applies, is rather total and composite. What it provides for is stopping of investigation not in respect of any particular accused but in respect of the offence itself, the benefit of which enures to all the accused whether in custody or on bail, whether recently arrested or long back, whether identified or unidentified, whether known of unknown yet, whether apprehended or absconding. It is not that under section 167 (5) investigation can be stopped in respect of the particular accused from the date of whose appearance or arrest, as the case may be, the prescribed period has already elapsed and at the same time allow the investigation to continue in respect of the other accused from the date of whose appearance or arrest the prescribed period has not yet elapsed. If the investigation is stopped under section 167 (5) the whole of the investigation is brought to a grinding halt not only in respect of all accused but also in respect of the offence or offences which was or were the subject-matter of the investigation:" ( 5 ) THE Learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed the implications of section 167 (5) from different angles. He has opined that the Period of three years is to reckon from the last date of arrest where several accused persons appear on different dates and that if sufficient cause is shown that there were good grounds for the arrest of an absconding accused at a late stage, the Magistrate ought not to stop further investigation. Obviously there may be cogent reasons for not completing the investigation within the period mentioned in section 167 (5), particularly when some of the accused persons abscond. But the law provides that the investigating officer must apply for extension of the period of submission of the chargesheet in good time and at any rate before the expiry of the period. The omission to pray further time in this regard before the expiry of the period mentioned in section 167 (5) is fatal and the same cannot be condoned by a belated application or for other reasons. The omission to pray further time in this regard before the expiry of the period mentioned in section 167 (5) is fatal and the same cannot be condoned by a belated application or for other reasons. ( 6 ) AS regards the view of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge that in cases of appearance of the accused persons on different dates the period mentioned in section 167 (5) shall run from the date of the last appearance, the view is directly opposed to that expressed in Dilip Kumar Das's case cited above. Hence the same cannot be upheld. ( 7 ) IN view of the legal position stated above, it must be held that the investigation of the entire case ought to have been stopped by the Learned Magistrate after the expiry of a period of three years from the first date of appearance of the accused persons. This revisional application, therefore, succeeds. It is held that further investigation in the case after expiry of three years has been illegal. The entire trial is, therefore, quashed and the accused petitioner be discharged after being released from his bail bond. Let a xerox copy of this order be handed over to the learned Advocate to the petitioner. Application allowed.