ORDER 1. This revisional case arises out of an application under s. 482 of Cr. P.C., 1973. 2. The petitioners are father and son, both Doctors. They are permanent residents of Calcutta and are partners of Messrs. Northland Nursing Home, 133, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta-700 004. On 29th November, 1990 a team of Police Officers visited the said Nursing Home and demanded from Shri Kishore Laha, Accountant of the Nursing Home a duplicate copy of the bill no. 494 dated 30th March, 1990 issued from the Nursing Home to Shri Jugal Kishore Agarwala for payment of the cost of treatment provided to his wife, Smt. Anushree Agarwala of Calcutta. The duplicate bill was produced by Shri Laha. The said duplicate bill was taken charge of by the police party on the ground that the bill contained a demand of a price for the drug higher than the actual price. Shri Laha was arrested. He was, however, released on bail by the Police Officers as the Officers were satisfied that Shri Laha was a heart-patient and a medical certificate was produced in support of the health of Shri Laha. On the following day, Shri Laha appeared before the Court of the Learned A.C.M.M., Calcutta as directed by police and was released on bail by the Learned Court. The Inspector of Drug, West Bengal (South) lodged a written complaint with the O.C., Enforcement Branch, Shakespeare Sarani alleging that Messrs. Northland Nursing Home had been indulging in violation of the provisions of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 by demanding a higher price for the sale of drugs. The formal allegation was connected with a complaint lodged by Shri Jugal Kishore Agarwala, husband of Smt. Anushree Agarwala to whom the bill no. 494 dated 30th March, 1990 was issued. Upon the said complaint, Section 'A' Case No. 364 dated 29.11.1990 under s. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as amended was registered for investigation. 3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the allegations made in the FIR do not make out the commission of an offence by the petitioners. It is further contended that no alleged demand of an amount higher than what should be demanded was made by the Nursing Home. There was not even a single reference to indicate as to what was the actual price that the petitioners were entitled to charge for providing medicine to the patient. It is further contended that no alleged demand of an amount higher than what should be demanded was made by the Nursing Home. There was not even a single reference to indicate as to what was the actual price that the petitioners were entitled to charge for providing medicine to the patient. The entire exercise of investigation was a colourable exercise of authority on false pretext and was manifestly against the terms of Article 21 of the Constitution. The initiation of the investigation is entirely illegal and unconstitutional. Hence, this revisional application for quashing the investigation of the case referred to above. 4. Affidavit of Service has been filed Mr. Sasanka Kumar Ghosh Government Advocate has come to oppose the application on behalf of the State-Respondent. 5. In Criminal Revision No. 1426 of 1993 the petitioner is Shri Kishore Laha, Accountant of Messrs. Northland Nursing Home, Calcutta. He has come for quashing the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 2545 of 1990 arising out of Section 'A' (Shyampukur Police Station) Case No. 364 dated 29.11.1990 under s. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act, 1955 now pending before the Learned 2nd Special Court under the E.C. Act, Calcutta. The facts of this case are the same as stated above. 6. The petitioner in this case has come with the same prayer on the same grounds as stated above. In this case also Mr. Sasanka Kumar Ghosh, learned Advocate has come on behalf of the respondent-State to oppose the application. 7. These two revisional cases are being dealt with in this case as the cases are identical. 8. The substantial point which has been argued by Mr. Sekhar Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the cases is that in view of the mandatory provisions of s. 167(5) of the Cr. P.C., the investigation which was started on 29.11.1990 was to be concluded within the stipulated time from that date. In this case the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet which was drawn up on 31st May. 1993. It was filed after the expiry of the statutory period and since all further proceeding had been stayed pursuant to the order passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 743 of 1991, the Learned E.C. Judge could not take cognizance of the offence till further order was received from the Hon'ble High Court. 1993. It was filed after the expiry of the statutory period and since all further proceeding had been stayed pursuant to the order passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 743 of 1991, the Learned E.C. Judge could not take cognizance of the offence till further order was received from the Hon'ble High Court. Hence the Learned Court is under an obligation to make an order stopping further investigation into the offence and to discharge the accused unless the Officer making the investigation satisfied the learned Court that for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of investigation beyond the prescribed period is necessary. 9. It has been laid down in a Special Bench decision of this Court reported in Shaktisadhan Majhi & other vs. State West Bengal, 1993(2) CHN 154 (SB), that the new sub-section (5) of s. 167, Cr. P.C. inserted by the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1988 shall not apply to the investigation already concluded or completed before the commencement of that sub-section but shall nevertheless apply to all investigations initiated before but not concluded and is thus pending on the date of such commencement. Under the amended law, discharge of the accused must follow as a matter of course once an order is made stopping the investigation. It was further held in that case that after the West Bengal Amendment, there will be no scope to follow the course suggested in Hussainara Khatoon & other vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1377 (at page 1381-82) after the stoppage of investigation. There was nothing to show that the Officer making the investigation satisfied the Learned Court that for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period mentioned in the sub-section was necessary. 10. Mr. Bose Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged another point in support of his contention. According to the Learned Counsel, 'there is nothing in the F.I.R. to show what was the amount charged in excess of the legitimate amount or what was the actual price of the medicine used and what was the bill amount charged therefore. In this sense, the F.I.R. was vague and no cognizance could be taken up that by the Investigating Agency. I am sorry, I cannot accept this contention of the Learned Counsel for the reasons given below. In this sense, the F.I.R. was vague and no cognizance could be taken up that by the Investigating Agency. I am sorry, I cannot accept this contention of the Learned Counsel for the reasons given below. The allegation that higher amount was charged than was chargeable under the provision of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 was sufficient to base an allegation of an offence thereunder read with the provisions of the E.C. Act, 1955. It was not absolutely necessary to state in the F.I.R. the exact amount of the difference in price. The Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation could work out that figure after collection of evidence, oral and documentary. 11. In view of the findings made above, I hold that the impugned proceedings should be quashed from the date of the expiry of the statutory period (six months in this case) from 29.11.1990. The revisional applications are thus allowed and the cases are accordingly disposed of. Revisional application allowed. Proceedings quashed. I agree.