NISITH KUMAR BATABYAL, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS hearing arises out of an application under Section 482. Cr. P. C. The facts of the case in short are as follows: ( 2 ) THIS petitioner was one of the Directors of M/s. North Brooke Jute Company Ltd. While the petitioner was a Director of the said Company the petitioner was neither in-charge nor responsible to the said Company for the conduct of its day to day business which was looked after by other competent officials of the said Company. The petitioner attended the meetings of the Board of Directors of the said Company to decide policy matters only. He resigned from the Directorship of the Company with effect from 2-5-1989, which was duly accepted by the Company and the Company on 11-5-1996 duly filed necessary Form No. 32 with the Office of the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal. After the petitioner had ceased to be a Director of the said Company, on 23-6-1989 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. West Bengal lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police (Spi.) Calcutta alleging inter alia, that the jute mill of M/s. North Brooke Jute Company Ltd. situated at Champadani; Baidyabati is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952. It was also alleged that the employer of the establishment had deducted a sum of Rs. 2,42,028/- from the wages/salaries of the workers during the period from February, 1989 to March. 1989 (first fortnight) and has not deposited the same with the Board of Trustees. It was further alleged that this was a misappropriation of Provident Fund money and criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code and that a report to this effect was submitted by the Provident Fund Inspector. It was also alleged that the names of the persons, who were suspected to have committed the breach of trust was given in the Provident Fund Inspectorts report. A copy of the said complaint is annexed with the petition being Annexure B. In pursuance of the said complaint the petitioner was arrested and was remanded to police custody on 26th June, 1989 and he was released on bail granted by this Honble Court on 1st July, 1989, After investigation, the 1. 0. A copy of the said complaint is annexed with the petition being Annexure B. In pursuance of the said complaint the petitioner was arrested and was remanded to police custody on 26th June, 1989 and he was released on bail granted by this Honble Court on 1st July, 1989, After investigation, the 1. 0. filed the charge-sheet under Section 406/349, IPC on 25th June, 1993, that is, beyond three years from the date on which the petitioner was arrested. Hence the petitioner has come before this Court under Section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. as amended by the West Bengal Act 24 of 1988 for discharge. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate for the State opposes the revisional application. ( 4 ) CONSIDERED the submissions of both sides. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that under Section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. as amended by the West Bengal Act 24 of 1988, after expiry of three years from the date of arrest of the petitioner, the investigation could not proceed without appropriate order from the Magistrate concerned or from the learned Sessions Court under sub-section 6 of Section 167, Cr. P. C. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the State submits that no order was passed by the learned Magistrate in this case extending the period of investigation but according to the learned State Advocate relying on a decision in the case of Durgesh Chandra Saha v. Bimal Chandra Saha and Ors. , the provision of Section 167 (5), Cr. P. C. as amended by West Bengal Act 24 of 1988 are not applicable in this case. Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the ratio of the said decision was followed by this Court in a Special Bench decision in Shaktisadhan Majhis case, reported in Shaktisadhan Majhi v. State of West Bengal, though the decision of the Apex Court was not there in 1993. Actually, the process of ratiocination of the Apex Court was followed by the said Special Bench by its own logic. In that case the same view has been taken as has been taken by their Lordships of the Apex Court to the effect that in case of investigation of a pending case was concluded before the coming into force of the West Bengal Act, as referred to, the amendment would not apply. In that case the same view has been taken as has been taken by their Lordships of the Apex Court to the effect that in case of investigation of a pending case was concluded before the coming into force of the West Bengal Act, as referred to, the amendment would not apply. The said amendment would be applicable in the case where the investigation was continuing up to the date when the West Bengal Amendment Act came into operation. There is no dispute that the investigation was not completed on the date on which the West Bengal Amendment Act came into effect, that is, on 25-1989. Therefore, this is a case where the provisions of the West Bengal Amendment Act will apply with its force. In view of the decision of the Apex Court as referred to above and in view of the decision of the Special Bench (supra), the only course which is open to the learned Magistrate is to extend the period of investigation or to pass an appropriate order which he has not done. Under the statutory mandate, the learned Magistrate was obliged to record the stop-proceeding order and after making that order to discharge of the petitioner. If the does not do so, that fact will not take away the benefit which had occurred to the accused persons for which the revisionist came here. The remissness on the part of the learned Magistrate had caused prejudice to the petitioner as he was entitled to an order of the discharge. Thus his liberty has been jeopardized from the date on which the stipulated period of three years expired due to non-recording of the order as per statutory mandate. The further continuance of the proceeding from that date became an abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances the revisional application succeeds and the further proceedings of the case being G. R. No.-435/89 pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore. District Hooghly are quashed. The matter is accordingly disposed off. Xerox certificate copy if applied for, be supplied as early as possible, prefer ably within 10 days from the date of filing for the same. Revision allowed.