ORDER This revision application has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No.33 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barhi dated 29.06.2010 in Misc. Case No.174 of 2009 in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioners to execute bond of Rs.5000/- with two sureties in order to keep peace for a period of one year, has been affirmed. 2. The facts of the case are not required to be stated in detail in view of points raised on behalf of the petitioners. Suffice is to say that a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) was initiated at the instance of the present opposite party no.2 Jhaman Sao, on the basis of a police report submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Barhi on 06.06.2009. Whereafter both the parties were directed to appear and file their respective show causes. The present petitioners appeared and filed their show cause and the first party also filed their show cause and then after completion of the inquiry under Section 116 of the Code, final order was passed on 29.06.2010 directing the second party-petitioners to execute bond as indicated above. The said order of Sub Divisional Magistrate was challenged by filing an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.06.2012. The said order is under challenge in this revision application. 3. Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate directing to execute the bond was without jurisdiction as the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code which was initiated by order dated 20.06.2009, was subsequently extended for a period of six months by order dated 11.12.2009 but no 'special reason' whatsoever in terms of Section 116 was assigned for the said extention and therefore the order was not inconformity with the mandatory provision of Section 116(6) of the Code. It was further submitted that even after first extention of six months, the proceeding continued beyond the period of another six months but this time even no order extending the period was passed and the Appellate Court failed to consider that the mandatory provision as provided under sub Section 6 of Section 116 of the Code was not followed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barhi. 4. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the court below by following the direction given in sub Section 6 of Section 116 of the Code, extended the period of inquiry for six months and there was no violation of any of the provision of the Code rather the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barhi after proper inquiry contemplated under Section 116 of the Code, rightly directed the petitioners to execute bond for maintaining for a period of one year. 5. Before I enter into the veils of the submissions of learned counsels, it is necessary to examine Section 116 of the Code which read as follows:- “116. Inquiry as to truth of information- (1) When an order under Section 111 has been read or explained under Section 112 to a person in court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under Section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary. (2) …......................... (3) …......................... (4) …......................... (5) …......................... (6) The inquiry under this Section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs: Provided that where any person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding against that person, unless terminated earlier, shall stand terminated on the expiry of a period of six months of such detention.” 6. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that inquiry as contemplated in the above Section has to be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, but if such inquiry is not completed within that stipulated period, the Court under sub Section 6 of the above Section has otherwise jurisdiction to extend the period for 'special reasons' after recording in writing. . 7. In the present case, I find from Lower Court Records that by order dated 11.12.2009 the proceeding was extended for another period of six months. The above order extending the period of inquiry passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barhi reads as follows:- “Pratham Paksha- Pratinidhitwa Aawedan evam Dhara 116 (vi) Da. Pra. Sa. ke tahat avadhi vistar hetu aawedan. Dwitaya Paksha- Pratinidhitwa Aawedan. Dhara 116 (b) ke tahat samapti ke avadhi se 6 maas ka avadhi vistar. Dinank 05.01.2010 ko rakha.” 8. From the aforesaid order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is apparently clear that no reason whatsoever what to speak of ‘special reasons’ has been assigned for extending the period of inquiry under sub Section 6 of Section 116 of the Code. It further appears that even after expiry of that extended six months, the proceeding continued but no order for further extention of the period was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 9. Hence, I am constrained to hold that order dated 11.12.2009 the also subsequent orders including the final order dated 29.06.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barhi were absolutely without jurisdiction. I further find that even learned Appellate Court did not consider this aspect of the matter in its true perspective and erred in dismissing the appeal filed against the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barhi. 10. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed. The order dated 11.12.2009 extending the period of inquiry by another six months under Section 116 of the Code as also the subsequent orders including the final order dated 29.06.2010 against which appeal was preferred and the judgment dated 08.06.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-V, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 33 of 2011 are hereby set aside.