Judgment : This revision is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikuddi in Crl.M.P.No. 3095 of 1991, dated 29. 1991 dismissing the petition to the revision petitioner to discharge him under Sec. 167(5) of Crl.P.C. 2. The revision petitioner was arrested Under Sec.4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the investigation was not completed within six months. So the revision petitioner moved before the learned Magistrate to discharge him for the reason that the charge-sheet was not filed within six months or no application was filed by the Investigating agency for extension of time to file charge-sheet. But the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition for the reason that the contraband seized was sent to the Forensic Laboratory and as the report was not received from the analyst, the charge-sheet could be filed within six months and hence, the petitioner cannot be discharged. As against this order, the revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in Jagannathan v. State, 1983 Crl.L.J. 1748, to contend that Sec.167(5), Crl.P.C. is a mandatory provision to discharge the accused when application was not filed by the investigating officer for extension of time and this aspect has been emphasized in the above decision to discharge to accused whenever charge-sheet was not filed within six months time in a summon case and that dictum was not followed by the learned Magistrate. No doubt the dictum of that decision is that whenever the investigating officer has not moved the court for extension of time, to satisfy the Magistrate that the investigation could not be completed the court has to discharge the accused. But this is a case in which the learned Magistrate has given reasons for not completing the investigation as the report of the analyst was not received from the Forensic Laboratory. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that there must have been a petition from the investigating officer for extension of time, and without that petition the court suo motu cannot extend the time and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have invoked Sec. 167(5), Crl.P.C. to discharge the accused. The section does not read that the investigating officer should file an application before the Magistrate to satisfy that he could not complete his investigation within the time. The section does not read that the investigating officer should file an application before the Magistrate to satisfy that he could not complete his investigation within the time. Section reads, “Unless the officer making investigation satisfied the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice, continuation of investigation beyond the period of six months time is necessary”. Therefore, two aspects are clear from the sub-section namely, Magistrate should be satisfied that investigation could not be completed within a period of six months time and in the interest of justice, the continuation of investigation beyond six months is necessary. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor represents that the investigating officer has completed his investigation by examining the witnesses, but getting the analyst report is not in his hand, as it has to come from the Forensic Laboratory and therefore, the charge-sheet could not be filed by the investigating officer without the analyst report, that as the court was satisfied that the investigation without forensic report could not be completed, the court has not accepted the contention of the petitioner and the order of the lower court is perfectly correct. As referred to above, sub-section requires the satisfaction to the Magistrate that the investigation could not be completed within six months time and the interest of justice also requires the continuation of investigation beyond the period of six months time. In this case, as the Analyst’s report is awaited, naturally the learned Magistrate was convinced that the investigating officer could not file the charge sheet completing his investigation. I find no error in the order of the lower court and this revision is not sustainable. Hence, this revision is dismissed.