ORDER 5.12.2000 — Accused persons in G.R. Case No. 1707 of 1999 of the Court of Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh have challenged legality and correctness of the order dated 24.8.2000. 2. The undisputed fact is that petitioners have been arrayed as accused in the aforesaid G.R. Case where the offences com¬plained are under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under Sec. 420, I.P.C. when the investigation could not be completed within a period of six months from the date of arrest of the petitioners, an application under Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 167, Cr.P.C. was moved before the Special Judge to issue direction to stop further investigation. That application was rejected on the ground that offence under Sec. 420, I.P.C. being punishable with imprisonment for seven years and fine, the provision in Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 167, Cr.P.C. may not be applicable in this case. 3. It appears that though learned Public Prosecutor partici¬pated in the hearing, but no instruction was obtained from the investigating agency about the state of affairs and what was the stage of the investigation in as much as according to Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 167, Cr. P.C. Magistrate shall pass order stopping further investigation where the investigation involving any case triable by a Magistrate as a "summons case" is not concluded within six months from the date of arrest of the accused unless the I.O. satisfies the Magistrate about the reasonableness of the delay and necessity of continuance of investigation in the inter¬est of justice. Learned Special Judge should have, therefore, directed the Investigating Officer to apprise the Court about the cause of the delay to consider the consequence thereof. Apart from that, learned Special Judge, for the reasons best known to him, did not take note of the decision of this Court in the case of *State of Orissa v. Bhagabat Panda (1998) 14 OCR 379, where it has been propounded that an offence under Sec. 420, I.P.C. being not governed by the summons procedure, cannot be tried together with an offence under Sec.7 of the E.C. Act in view of the provision in Sec. 12-AA of the said Act. Similarly, learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the ratio in the case of **Kailash Chandra Agrawalla v. State, (1995) 9 OCR 443, where a detailed guidelines have been provided regarding application of Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 167, Cr.P.C. in appropriate case. Similarly, learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the ratio in the case of **Kailash Chandra Agrawalla v. State, (1995) 9 OCR 443, where a detailed guidelines have been provided regarding application of Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 167, Cr.P.C. in appropriate case. Being a senior ranked District Judge, such attitude towards the precedents does not speak of a healthy trend. He is cautioned to avoid such practice and attitude. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, learned Special Judge is directed to hear the parties afresh on the said application and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needles to say that learned Special Judge shall call upon the investigating agency to apprise of the position of the investigation while considering the aforesaid application and explanation, if any, given in that respect may be duly considered. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication in the light of the aforesaid directions. Misc. Case allowed.