1998 (4) TMI 573 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by the State of West Bengal.
2. Competence of the Magistrate to pass an order under Section 167(5) despite the ouster of his jurisdiction to try the offence.
3. Extension of time for investigation beyond the prescribed period.
4. Consequences of failure to complete investigation within the stipulated period.
5. Jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in light of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by the State of West Bengal:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which fixes a time schedule for various stages of criminal proceedings, including the production of the accused before the Magistrate, detention, and completion of investigation. The West Bengal Legislative Assembly amended sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) of Section 167, fixing different time periods for different types of cases and providing the Magistrate with the authority to stop further investigation and discharge the accused if the investigation is not completed within the specified periods unless special reasons justify the continuation.

2. Competence of the Magistrate to pass an order under Section 167(5) despite the ouster of his jurisdiction to try the offence:
In the case of the appellant involved in an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, the Magistrate initially dismissed the application for discharge, stating that only the Special Judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court Act 1949) could pass such an order. However, the High Court held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to pass the order under Section 167(5) despite the ouster of his jurisdiction to try the offence.

3. Extension of time for investigation beyond the prescribed period:
The judgment addresses whether time for investigation could be extended without the Investigating Officer moving for such an extension before the expiry of the period. The Court clarified that the two-year period for completing the investigation must be reckoned from the date the accused surrendered in court. It was emphasized that the order to stop further investigation and discharge the accused is not automatic and that the Magistrate has the power to refrain from stopping the investigation if it is in the interest of justice and there are special reasons to do so.

4. Consequences of failure to complete investigation within the stipulated period:
The Court held that the time schedule in Section 167(5) should not be treated with rigidity, and it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to discharge the accused immediately upon the expiry of the period. The Magistrate must consider whether further investigation is necessary for the interest of criminal justice and look into the progress of the investigation before deciding to stop it and discharge the accused.

5. Jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in light of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
In the case involving an offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Court addressed the contention that the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence due to the bar contained in Section 468 of the Code. The High Court's assumption that the offence was punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years was erroneous. The Court clarified that the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, and thus, the bar of limitation under Section 468 does not apply. The proviso to clause (f) in Section 12-AA(1) of the E.C. Act limits the jurisdiction of the Special Court in awarding sentences but does not alter the extent of punishment prescribed for the offence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the interpretation that the time schedule in Section 167(5) is flexible and not mandatory for automatic discharge of the accused. The Magistrate must consider the necessity of further investigation in the interest of justice. The Court also clarified that the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act is punishable up to seven years, and the bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Code does not apply.