Judgment : This revision is filed against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in Crl.M.P. No. 2770 of 1991 setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur, in Crl.M.P. No. 1288 of 1990 under Sec. 167 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revision petitioner herein and some others were prosecuted for offences under Secs. 337, 338, 304(A), 182, I.P.C. read with Secs. 8 and 9 of the Indian Explosives Act. The occurrence took place on 21. 1988 and the first accused was arrested on 31. 1988. The prosecution did not complete the investigation within six months as contemplated under Sec. 167(5), Criminal Procedure Code. The accused/revision petitioner moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur in Criminal M.P.No. 1288 of 1990 under Sec. 167(5), Criminal Procedure Code to stop the investigation. The learned Magistrate ordered to stop further investigation. As this order was intimated to the respondent police, they took up the matter in revision before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in Crl.M.P.No. 2770 of 1991 to set aside that order. The revision petitioner herein opposed this application and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, being satisfied that the police required further time to complete the investigation, allowed the application, setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner who was the second accused before the learned Magistrate, has come forward with this revision. 2. Under Sec. 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in summons cases the investigation should be completed within six months, unless the officer investigating the case moves before the court with sufficient reasons for extension of time for investigation, the Magistrate shall order stopping further investigation. This case admittedly is a summons case for which the maximum punishment is only two years. Therefore, the investigation should have been completed by the respondent within six months from the date of the arrest of the first accused on 31. 1988. But the final report was not filed and, therefore, the accused himself had to move before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur, on 8. 1990 to order for stopping the investigation. 3. Therefore, the investigation should have been completed by the respondent within six months from the date of the arrest of the first accused on 31. 1988. But the final report was not filed and, therefore, the accused himself had to move before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur, on 8. 1990 to order for stopping the investigation. 3. Even though, it had been contended by the respondent-Police, before the court below that the investigation could not be completed within six months as the postmortem certificates for the deceased persons and the age certificates for certain other injured persons could not be obtained by them and further the case diary also was sent to certain authorities who are entitled to peruse the records under the Indian Arms Act, actually the post-mortem certificates have already been filed into the court even on 8. 1991 itself. There is nothing to show that the prosecution is investigating the case under the Indian Arms Act also. However, the learned Principal Sessions Judge having been satisfied with the frequent transfer of the Police Officers he felt that the investigation could not be completed within six months and therefore, he has permitted the police to continue the investigation. .4. The learned counsel Mr. Gopinath, appearing for the revision petitioner, argues that the reasons given by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramnad, are not acceptable to permit the police for the continuation of the investigation beyond six months because the transfer of the Police Officers is a routine affair on the administrative side and that cannot be a ground for not completing the investigation within a period of six months, complying with the mandatory provisions of the Code and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not correct in permitting for the investigation beyond six months. Even though the respondent-police explained the reasons for seeking extension of time for securing the post-mortem certificates, Case Diary and the age certificates, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has not found favour of those grounds. However, the transfer of the officers alone was accepted by him to be the reasonable ground for extension of time. But, I feel that this stand taken by the learned Principal Sessions Judge does not stand to reason because it is not as if the Police Stations are without the Investigating Officers. However, the transfer of the officers alone was accepted by him to be the reasonable ground for extension of time. But, I feel that this stand taken by the learned Principal Sessions Judge does not stand to reason because it is not as if the Police Stations are without the Investigating Officers. There must have been some Officer in charge of the Police Station whose duty was to complete the investigation according to the directions of the Code. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Principal Sessions Judge is not correct. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sattur, has exercised his discretion conferred under Sec. 167(5) of the Code to stop the investigation and unless the learned Sessions Judge has found that this discretion was not properly exercised, he cannot interfere with the order of the Magistrate. As the charge-sheet was not filed within six months and the respondent-police did not seek extension of time, naturally the learned Magistrate had necessarily to pass order stopping the investigation. There is no error in the order of the learned Magistrate and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not right in interfering with that order. .6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would agree that the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, has to be set aside. As held in State of West Bengal v. Falguni Dutta and another, (1993)3 S.C.C. 288 , the respondent- police cannot be prevented from filing the charge-sheet in respect of the investigation they have done within the period of six months. As the first accused was arrested on 31. 1988, the investigation should have been completed before 37. 1988. Therefore, the respondent police is entitled to file their final report on the basis of the investigation done before 37. 1988. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Mr. Gopinath would also agree that this is the course open to the respondent police. In view of the reasons given above, the revision has to be allowed. 7. In the result, the revision is allowed setting side the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, and the respondent is permitted to file the final report on the basis of the investigation done within six months from the date of the surrender of the accused, who surrendered first (said to be on 31. 1988).