N. K. BATABYAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application arises out of an application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. P. C. and is directed against the order dated 24. 8. 93 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) at Hooghly Sadar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1407 of 1992 setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 22nd July. 1992 discharging the petitioner in view of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in G. R. Case No. 291 of 1989 arising out of Mogra P. S. Case No. 59 dated 24th March, 1989. ( 2 ) IT is clear that in this case the accused person surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 2. 5. 89 and the case was started under sections 408, 466 and 120b I. P. C. So, the investigation had to be completed and chargesheet submitted within 2. 5. 92. But, unfortunately, for the prosecution, no charge-sheet was submitted within the stipulated time and the learned Magistrate by an order dated 22nd July, 1992 was pleased to record an order discharging the accused person from the case and the stopping of further investigation. Against that order an application under section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly, for vacating the order extending the period of investigation. The learned District Judge has been pleased to hold that the learned Magistrate by his order dated 4. 1. 92 was competent to extend the time for filing of chargesheet till 12. 5. 92 and again on 12. 5. 92 the learned Magistrate was within his competence to extend the time till 1. 10. 92. The learned Sessions Judge also independently considered the matter from mother angle and was pleased to bold that it was a fit case where he should exercise his jurisdiction under section 167 (6) of the Cr. P. C. and he, accordingly, extended the period as prayed for by the State. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the revisionist has come before this revision. His main contention is that the learned District Judge was wrong on both the counts. ( 4 ) NO one has appeared on behalf of the State. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the revisionist has come before this revision. His main contention is that the learned District Judge was wrong on both the counts. ( 4 ) NO one has appeared on behalf of the State. ( 5 ) CONSIDERED the submissions made by the learned lawyer for the revisionist and perused the revisional application and the documents' annexed therewith. It appears from the certified copy of the order sheet of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the order which was passed by the learned S. D. J. M. on 4. 1. 92 was not upon any prayer for the prosecution side or any special reason was assigned or mentioned before the learned Magistrate for enabling him to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon him under subsection (5) of section 167 Cr. P. C. as amended by West Bengal Amendment Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge completely overlooked this fact. The apparent extension of time on 4. 1. 92 was a mechanical act made suo moto by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, he had no jurisdiction to extend the time beyond 2. 5. 92. It is needless to mention about the propriety of the order passed on 12. 5. 92. ( 6 ) SO far as the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 167 (6) Cr. P. C. is concerned, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge was required to be satisfied first that further investigation into the offence ought to be made and thereafter he can extend the time limit pres cribed by sub-section (5) of section 167 Cr. P. C. From a plain reading of the impugned order it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded that chargesheet was complete and the filing of the same was only left to be done. So there was nothing for "further investigation into the offence sought to be made" as required under sub-section (6) of section 167. The learned Additional Session Judge upon considering this point (that the chargesheet was complete) and keeping in view the nature of the alleged offence, was satisfied that the time should be extended. It is nowhere spelt out what was the special element in the nature of the case which induced him to take the' view he had taken. The learned Additional Session Judge upon considering this point (that the chargesheet was complete) and keeping in view the nature of the alleged offence, was satisfied that the time should be extended. It is nowhere spelt out what was the special element in the nature of the case which induced him to take the' view he had taken. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is on the face of it rather vague and confused. The satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on good and cogent ground formed the pre-condition for the exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section (6) of section 167 Cr. P. C. The pre-condition not being fulfilled in this case, there was a thresh hold error committed by the Additional Sessions Judge in invoking the jurisdiction under section 167 (6) Cr. P. C. In that view of the matter, the revisional application succeeds. The impugned order is quashed. No order is made as to costs. Let xerox copy of this order be made available to the petitioner on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities. Application succeeds.