NARAYAN CHANDRA PAUL Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(GAU)-1994-2-15
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (FROM: AGARTALA)
Decided on February 21,1994

Narayan Chandra Paul Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Tripura Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF TRIPURA V. NIRANJIT SINGHA AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN BOX AGARWALA V. GIRISH CHANDRA GOGOI AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAINARA KHATOON 1 VS. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.N. Baruah, J. - (1.)ON the basis of a First Information Report dated 19.7.89 lodged with West Agartala Police Station, the Police registered a case (PS Case No. 23 (7)/90) under Sections 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner on the allegations that he drove a vehicle negligently and in a very high speed, causing death of three persons. During investigation police arrested accused and he was released on bail on 30.7.89. Charge sheet was submitted on 26.3.91 on completion of investigation. As the case being a summons procedure one, it was contended that submission of charge sheet after expiry of period of six months was contrary to the provision of Sections 167(5) and 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agartala, stating that taking cognizance of the offence was illegal. However, the Judicial Magistrate rejected the petition. Accordingly, a revision has been filed praying for setting aside the Annexure -B order dated 21.1.92 passed in GR Case No. 963 of 1989 by the Magistrate.
(2.)THE case was placed before a Single Bench (the Chief Justice). The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decisions in State of Tripura v. Niranjit Singha and Anr., (1987) 1 GLR 231 and in Hanuman Box Agarwala v. Girish Chandra Gogoi and Ors., (1990) 2 GLR 46. Having heard the counsel, the Chief Justice was of the opinion that the correctness of the decisions required to be considered by a larger Bench, On the basis of the said order, the case has been placed before this Bench for consideration.
The question which falls for determination is - if a case triable by a Magistrate as a summons case and the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the dale on which the accused was arrested, whether the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence after expiry of the period?

(3.)IN State of Tripura v. Niranjit Singha (Supra) a Single Judge of this Court has occasion to deal with the provision under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Single Judge after discussing decisions of various High Courts in this regard observed that" the mandate of the legislature in respect of Sub -section (5) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure is clear and in cases triable under summons procedure the investigating agency must complete the investigation within a period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused failing which the Magistrate is legally bound to stop further investigation. If the investigating agency wants to proceed beyond the period of six months it must make an application before the Court within the aforesaid period and the Court may allow after applying its judicial mind continuance of investigation beyond the above period provided, the Court is satisfied that there are special reasons and that for ends of justice such continuance of investigation is necessary." The learned Single Judge further observed that any other interpretation, would make the provision nugatory and it would go contrary to the intention of the legislature. The requirement of Sub -section (5) of Section 167 of the Code must be fulfilled before the Magistrate can take cognizance. While coming to the conclusion, the learned Single Judge accepted the view expressed by High Courts of Calcutta and Rajasthan and disagreed with the view expressed by other High Courts, namely, Madras and Delhi.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.