Judgment : S. VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. THOUGH this matter has come up for admission, as both sides are represented, the matter is treated as admitted and heard on merits. 2. THE P. S.. , Banahatti Police Station has filed a charge-sheet against the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 21-1-1991. On the same day, the accused-respondent was apprehended and produced before the court. The charge-sheet was filed on 14-8-1991. During the course of the proceedings, the learned Special Judge having found that the charge-sheet had not been filed within six months from the date of the arrest of the accused, relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in State of Karnataka v L. N. Chakrapani, stopped further proceedings under Section 167 (5) read with Section 258, Cr. P. C. 3. THE main contention of the learned State Public Prosecutor is that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of west Bengal v Falguni Dutta, the Special Judge could not have stopped the proceedings only on the ground that the charge-sheet had not been filed within six months from the date of the arrest of the accused. The Supreme Court in the above decision has held that there is nothing in Section 167, Cr. P. C. to suggest that if the investigation has not been completed within the period allowed by that sub-section, the officer in-charge of the police station will be absolved from the responsibility of filing the police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code. The supreme Court has in that case approved the observations of the high Court of Andhra Pradesh which are as hereunder:"under the new Code in addition to definition for "investigation" in Section 2 (h), a separate definition for police report is given by Section 2 (r ). This coupled with the newly introduced sub-section (5) of Section 167 brings out the distinction between investigation by the police and the police report on which a court is to take cognizance. The report cannot now be said to be an integral part of investigation. This coupled with the newly introduced sub-section (5) of Section 167 brings out the distinction between investigation by the police and the police report on which a court is to take cognizance. The report cannot now be said to be an integral part of investigation. The introduction of Section 167 (5) in the code cannot have the effect of invalidating the investigation done within the period of six months or enabling the court to stopping the filing of police report under Section 173 (2 ). If the investigation done during the period of six months discloses an offence, police report may be founded on it and the court can take cognizance of the same. " 4. IN view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in a case where the charge-sheet is not filed within six months from the date of the arrest of the accused, the court will have to only ignore that portion of the investigation which has been conducted after the expiry of the period of six months without the permission of the court and if the material collected during the investigation within the period of six months discloses prima facie an offence against the accused, then the court will have to proceed with the case. The court cannot ignore even that material which has been collected within the period of six months and stop further proceedings. As in this case, the Special judge has not gone into this question and has stopped further proceedings only on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed after the expiry of six months, the order cannot be sustained. 5. FOR the above reasons, this petition is allowed setting a side the impugned order. The matter is remitted to the learned special Judge to follow the dictum laid down by the Supreme court in the above case and pass appropriate orders.