Judgment 1. IN this revisional application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the impugned order dated 30th April, 1991 passed in G. R. 948 of 1988 pending in the court of the Third Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. On the basis of a written complaint dated the 24th July, 1986 lodged by the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports of Calcutta the C. B. I. , recorded the F. I. R. on the 5th August, 1986 under Sections 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947: After completion of investigation the C. B. I, submitted chargesheet on he 30th March, 1988 under Sections 420/468/471/120b I. P. C. The petitioner accused filed an application before the learned court below for discharge under Section 239 Cr. P. C. on the 23rd July, 1990. The learned court below took up the matter for consideration of framing of charge. The hearing in the matter continued on 21st August, 1990 and the next date for further hearing as I find, was fixed on 4th September, 1990. On 4th September, 1990 a supplementary charge sheet along with some papers was filed and the learned court below fixed 30th November, 1990 for hearing on the questions of the acceptance of the said supplementary charge sheet. The matter was thereafter directed to be fixed on 30th April, 1991 and on that date by the impugned order the learned court below, after going through the case record and after hearing the learned special p. P., directed the supplementary charge sheet to be treated as part of the original charge sheet and then fixed a date for hearing of the petition of the accused for discharge under Section 239 Cr. P.C. It is needless to mention here that the question whether the accused is to be discharged under section 239 Cr. P. C. or any charge is to be framed under Section 240 cr. P.C. refers to the same composite stage of the procedure where the magistrate has to consider the question whether charge is required to be framed against the accused or he has to be discharged. 2. THE point raised before me on behalf of the petitioner accused is that in view of the amended provisions of Section 167 (5) Cr. P.C. refers to the same composite stage of the procedure where the magistrate has to consider the question whether charge is required to be framed against the accused or he has to be discharged. 2. THE point raised before me on behalf of the petitioner accused is that in view of the amended provisions of Section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. as applicable in west Bengal there is no scope of filing any supplementary charge sheet once a charge sheet has been submitted after completion of investigation. It is the argument of the learned Advocate far the petitioner that accordingly the learned court below can not take into consideration the supplementary charge sheet or the materials referred to therein while considering the question of framing of charge in this case. Section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. of course contemplates submission of further report (commonly termed as supplementary charge sheet) after a charge sheet has already been submitted on completion of investigation. As regards Sub-section (8) of section 173 it is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, to quote his own language, that the said Sub-section (8) of Section 173 stands 'suffocated' by the West Bengal amendment of Section 167 (5)Cr. P. C. and therefore, so far as West Bengal is concerned, once charge sheet has been submitted after completion of investigation there is no scope of filing any supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. The original Sub-section (5) of section 167 Cr. P. C. runs thus: "167 (5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-cae the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months form 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 satisfied the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the constitution of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary." 3. THE said Sub-section (5) of Section 167 was however substituted by the West Bengal Act 24 of 1988 with effect from 2nd May. THE said Sub-section (5) of Section 167 was however substituted by the West Bengal Act 24 of 1988 with effect from 2nd May. 1989 by the following provisions: "(5), If, in respect of- (i) any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months or (ii) any case exclusively triable by a court of Session or a case under Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the investigation is not concluded within a period of three years, or (iii) any case other than those mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii), the investigation is not concluded within a period of two years from the date on which the accused was arrested or made his appearance, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence and shall discharge the accused 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 periods mentioned in this Subsection is necessary." 4. WE thus find that Section 167 (5) prescribes specific periods for completion of investigation. In ordinary circumstances if the investigation is not concluded within the specified period applicable to the case the investigation has to be stopped and the accused discharged. Such provision has been enacted to check undue prolongation of investigation to the detriment and prejudice of the accused. In this connection it is also to be noticed that the head-note of section 167 Cr. P.C. is "procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours". Section 173 Cr. P.C. bears the head-notes "report of police officer on completion of investigation. "Section 173 (1) Cr. P. C. runs thus:" (1) Every investigation under this chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. 5. SO the general mandate of law is that every investigation has to be completed without unnecessary delay. Section 167 (5) further mandates that unless the investigation is completed within the period specified therein such investigation has to be stopped and the accused discharged unless the Magistrate directs the investigation to continue beyond the prescribed period for special reasons and in the interests of justice. Section 173 (2) provides inter alia that as soon as the investigation is completed the police shall submit a report to the competent Magistrate in the prescribed form. Section 173 (2) provides inter alia that as soon as the investigation is completed the police shall submit a report to the competent Magistrate in the prescribed form. If such police report shows commission of offence by the accused in that event such report is commonly called a charge sheet. Once the police submits charge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. after completion of investigation the stage becomes ripe for the competent Magistrate to consider the question of taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr. P. C. If cognizance is taken then the matter has to pass through the relevant procedures for disposal of the case. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr. P. C. runs thus: "173 (8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed, and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forward under Sub-section (2)" 6. SUB-SECTION (8) of Section 173 Cr. P. C. thus keeps the door open for submission of further report, be it termed as supplementary charge sheet or otherwise- if further evidence has been obtained, after further investigation subsequent to the submission of a charge sheet after completion of investigation under Sub-section (2) of Section 173. The question that has been raised before me is whether Sub-section (8) of Section 173 stands 'suffocated' by reason of the West Bengal amendment of Sub-section 167. It is however to be noticed here that even the original Sub-section (5) of Section 167 provided a period of limitation of six months for completion of investigation in a case triable as a summons rase but inspite of that the legislature incorporated the provisions of Sub-section (8)in Section 173 without carving out any exception that Section 173 (8) will not apply where Section 16795 applies. Sub-section (5) of section 167 as it stood originally as well as it stands now after the West Bengal amendment clearly concerns and relates to a stage where the investigation has not yet been completed. If the investigation is not completed within the specified period the same has to be stopped and the investigation can not be continued farther unless the Magistrate for special reasons and in the interests of justice allows such continuation. Subsection (8) of Section 173 however operates at an altogether different stage. While Sub-section (5) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. speaks of the stage where the investigation is yet to be completed Sub-section (2) of Section 173 relates to the stage where the investigation has already been completed and thereafter charge sheet is going to be submitted on the basis of such completed investigation, Sub-section (8) of Section 173 however relates to a still later stage, namely, a stage where charge sheet has already been submitted under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 after completion of investigation. All these stages, namely, the completion of investigation under Section 167 (5), submission of charge sheet under Section 173 (2) on completion of investigation and submission of what is called supplementary charge sheet, if at all, at a still later stage under Subsection (8) of section 173 with further evidence obtained on the basis of further investigation, if any, conducted after submission of charge sheet are indeed different chronological stages and there is no reason to hold that section 16795) Cr. P.C. 'suffocates' Section 173 (8) or renders the same inapplicable. The purpose of Section 167 (5) is served where charge sheet on completion of investigation within the specified period is submitted and thereafter the court will be free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and the accused will not be required any more to face the ordeal of any prolonged investigation for an indefinite period, but at the same time if on the basis of further investigation after submission of charge sheet any new evidence is obtained there is no reason why the same should not be brought in the picture through Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr. P.C. for securing the cause of justice, for the very purpose of which the said Subsection (8) of section 173 has been enacted. P.C. for securing the cause of justice, for the very purpose of which the said Subsection (8) of section 173 has been enacted. The cause of justice is not served by shutting out relevant evidence and that is why there is no scope of holding that Sub-section 173 (8) has become inoperative by reason of sub-section (5) of Section 167. 7. THAT Sub-section (5) of Section 167 does not, by its own force, oust the operation of Section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. will be also logically evident if we consider this simple illustration. Suppose, in a case for which the prescribed period for completion of investigation under Section 167 (5) is three years, the police submits charge sheet within six months. Subsequently, if the police obtains further evidence on further investigation after submission of charge sheet and forwards the same to the Magistrate within, say, six months of the initial submission of charge sheet it will be a gross miscarriage of justice to exclude such further evidence presented by supplementary charge sheet, although filed well within the period prescribed under Section 167 (5), simply on the ground that once charge sheet is submitted the filling of supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 (8) is barred in view of Section 167 (5). The above illustration readily indicates the fallacy of the argument that Section 173 (8) stands suffocated by Section 16795) Cr. P. C. while Section 167(5) Cr. P. C. safeguards the interest of the accused is not required to suffer the ordeal of an unduly prolonged and stale investigation, Section 173 (8) keeps the door open in the interest of justice for entertaining subsequent evidence relevant to the matter collected after submission of charge sheet under Section 173 (2). Once the charge sheet is submitted the petitioner is no more required to face the ordeal of any unduly prolonged investigation and the subsequent procedures regarding cognizance and trial become operative and procedurally the matter starts moving forward, but it will be unjust to the cause of justice to exclude further evidence that may be sought to be brought to the notice of the court subsequently, simply for the reason that charge sheet has already been submitted. While Sub-section (8) of Section 173 contemplates presentation of further evidence after charge sheet has been submitted on completion of investigation, the whole purpose of section 167 (5) Cr. While Sub-section (8) of Section 173 contemplates presentation of further evidence after charge sheet has been submitted on completion of investigation, the whole purpose of section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. is to ensure completion of investigation within the specified period in ordinary circumstances. Section 167 (5) and Section 173 (8) operate in different spheres mutually exclusive of each other and there is no scope of holding that 167 (5) suffocates or ousts the operations of Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. Therefore the impugned order of the learned magistrate directing the supplementary charge sheet to be taken into consideration is neither illegal nor wrong. 8. ANOTHER interesting feature of this case has to be pointed out here. In this case, the original charge sheet, after completion of investigation, was submitted on 30th March, 1988. Cognizance was taken on 22nd April, 1988. The West Bengal Amendment of Section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. came into force on 2nd May, 1988 and the supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 4th September, 1990. The learned Advocate the petitioner in this connection refers to my own decision in Shyamal Kr. Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal 1993, C. Cr. L. R. (Cal) 31 = 1992 (II) CHN 505 = 97 CWN 539 and submits that there it has been held inter alia that the substituted sub-section (5) of Section 167 does not apply to any case where the investigation has already been concluded and charge sheet submitted before the substituted Sub-section came into force. It is not understood how my said decision in Shyamal Kr. Chakraborty (supra) comes to the help of the petitioner in the present case. Rather in this case the substituted Sub-section (5) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. does not apply so far as the original charge-sheet is concerned because the investigation was completed and charge-sheet submitted before the substituted Sub-section (5)came into force. There is no question of Section 173 (8) being suffocated by the said Sub-section (5) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. It may be also stated here that the petitioner accused appeared in the case before the learned court below and was released on bail on 17th June, 1988 when the West Bengal Amendment of Sub-section (5) of Section 167 was yet to come into force. P.C. It may be also stated here that the petitioner accused appeared in the case before the learned court below and was released on bail on 17th June, 1988 when the West Bengal Amendment of Sub-section (5) of Section 167 was yet to come into force. Since the prescribed period under Section 167(5) has to be reckoned from the date of arrest or appearance of the accused which in the present case is 17th June, 1988 and since in the present case the supplementary charge sheet also has been submitted on 4th September, 1990, that is, well within three years from the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, the supplementary charge-sheet itself, it may be noticed, has been submitted within the period of three years which is the applicable period in a case of this nature as prescribed by the substituted Sub-section (5) of Section 167. In my view of the matter there is therefore no scope of excluding the supplementary charge-sheet and the evidence forwarded therewith or referred to therein from consideration in the case. The revisional application is therefore dismissed and the learned court below is directed to proceed according to law. Revisional Petition dismissed.