Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 421 (CAL)

Pulin Behari Sasmal v. State of West Bengal

2001-07-13

Narayan Chandra Sil

body2001
JUDGMENT N.C. Sil, J.: This revisional application under section 401 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing the proceeding being E.C. Case No.9 of 1992 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act pending before the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Contai, in view of the amended provisions of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged that the case was instituted on 2.12.1992 and the accused/revisionist was arrested on that day. The accused was produced before the learned lower Court on the next day i.e. on 3.12.1992 and the charge-sheet was submitted on 19.11.1993 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act. It is pointed out in the revisional application that the submission of charge-sheet was long after the lapse of statutory period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused and as such the learned lower court ought to have stopped the proceeding. 3. Mr. P. Satpathi, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to a case law purported to have been reported in 1991 C.Cr.L.R. 158, (para 12). But to my utter dismay I do not find any case law there having any bearing with the instant case. He has again referred to the case of Pradip Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, (1997, 2 CHN 28) in which it was held that where the chargesheet was not filed in a case for the offence under section 304 I.P.C. within three years from the arrest of the accused and no petition was filed by the I.O. within the statutory period of such three years for confirmation of the investigation, the accused is entitled to be discharged. 4. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has also referred to the ratio decided in the case of Nirmal Kanti Roy vs. State of West Bengal, (1998 C.Cr.L.R., SC 216) in which it was held that the order, stopping further investigation in terms of the provisions of sections 167(5), 468 read with section 473 into an offence under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act and the consequential order of discharge are not intended to be automatic sequel to the failure to complete investigation within the period fixed in the sub-section (5) of section 167 of Cr.P.C. It is further observed that the succeeding words in the said subsection confer power on the Court to refrain from stopping such investigation if the Investigating Officer satisfies the Magistrate of the fusion of two premises (1) that in the interest of justice it is necessary to proceed with the investigation beyond the period shown in the sub-section (2) that there are special reasons to do so. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has also referred to the ratio decided in the case of Jay Sankar Jha vs. The State of West Bengal, (86 CWN 242) wherein it was held that in view of section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the investigation in a summons case beyond the period of six months could be continued only if the officer making the investigation satisfied the Magistrate that for "special reasons" and in the "interest of justice" the continuation of investigation beyond the period of six months was necessary. It was also held in that case that such satisfaction of the Magistrate must take place before the expiry of the period of six months. 6. Miss Parul Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the State has argued before me that I.O. had prayed for extension of time of investigation from time to time and the learned Special Judge, E.C. Court was pleased to allow the same. 7. On scrutiny it appears from the certified copies of the orders passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Court, Contai that similar such petition was also filed before him for stopping the investigation under section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the same was rejected. On further scrutiny it appears that the statutory period as envisaged in sub-section (5) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to expire on 31.5.1993. On further scrutiny it appears that the statutory period as envisaged in sub-section (5) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to expire on 31.5.1993. It further appears that the I.O. since before the date of expiry of such statutory period had been filing petitions praying for extension of time of investigation. In fact, the prayer for such extension of time was due to the collection of the report from the expert of the samples of kerosene oil, diesel and petrol from the Indian Oil Corporation. The learned Special Judge, E.C. Court appears to have given his anxious consideration and after having applied his mind duly allowed the time for submission of the report by the I.O. in final form. Neither the prayers of the I.O. made from time to time was as in a routine form nor that the learned Special Judge, E.C. Court was casual in allowing such prayers. This is what is in total consonance with the ratios decided in the case of Nirmal Kanti Roy vs. The State of West Bengal (supra) and Jay Sankar Jha vs. The State of West Bengal (supra). In the instant case the I.O. acted to the total satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act) in protracting the period of investigation and as such I do not find any illegality in the manner the investigation was going on and as such there appears no scope for invoking the provision of subsection (5) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The revisional application is accordingly dismissed on contest. A copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned lower court forthwith. Revisional application dismissed.