STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SHYAMAL CHATTERJEE
LAWS(CAL)-1996-9-15
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 19,1996

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Appellant
VERSUS
SHYAMAL CHATTERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.B.Mukherjee, J. - (1.)This revisional application has been preferred by the State of West Bengal against the order dated 24.4.95 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Chandannagore in G.R. Case No. 396 Dt. 1992 (Singur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 19.5.92).
(2.)On the basis of an FIR lodged on 19.5.92 against the accused opposite parties the instant Singur P.S. Case was started under Section 419/420/4681471/120B IPC. The accused opposite parties were brought under arrest and produced before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 21.5.92. The investigating officer from time to time made prayers for time for submission of report in final form and the time was extended up to 2.6.94 and charge sheet was submitted on 28.5.94 and placed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 2.6.94 when he took cognizance of the offence. An application under section 167(5) Cr PC was filed on behalf of the accused opposite parties and the learned S.D.J.M. by order dated 24.4.95 allowed the said prayer and held that the taking up cognizance was bad in law as it was done on a charge sheet submitted beyond the prescribed period and also discharged the accused person. The grounds taken in the revisional application are that the S.D.J.M. failed to consider that the charge sheet was submitted by the I.O. within the extended time and having regard to the effect that cognizance was taken accordingly, the S.D.J.M. had got no authority to exercise revisional power and to hold that the cognizance taken was bad.
(3.)The revisional application is being resisted by O.P. No. 1 alone even though, notice, it appears to have been Served on all the O.P.S. I have also heard the submissions made by the learned Advocates representing the two sides and I have also gone through the lengthy order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar dated 24.4.95 I have also perused the Lower Court record and I find from the same that the accused persons were produced under arrest on 21.5.92. Offences with which they have been charged including offences under section 468 and section 471 IPC. In terms of section 167(5) as amended by West Bengal Act 24 of 1988 the investigation is required to be completed in a case exclusively triable by court of session or a case which falls under Chapter XVIII of the IPC within a period of three years from the date of arrest of the accused. Offences under section 468 and 471 IPC falls within Chapter XVIII of the IPC. As such in terms of section 167(5)(II) investigation is required to be completed within a period of three years from the date of arrest of the accused persons which was on 20.5.92. I have stated earlier that as per the charge sheet investigation was completed on 28.5.94 when the charge sheet was submitted. Therefore, there was no violation of the relevant previsions of the Code. The learned Magistrate was all along under the impression that investigation in this case is to be completed within a period of two years from the date of arrest which is not the correct position. From this view of the matter the revisional application is liable to be allowed. But on a scrutiny of the order sheets of the Lower Court record it appears to me that there has been a violation of mandatory provision of the Code in the matter of taking cognizance under section 190(l)(b) Cr PC. From the order dated 2.6.96 as also from the scrutiny of the charge sheet it appears to me that except the report in the final form which is a document within the meaning of section 173(2) Cr PC, no other materials were there before the learned S.D.J.M. at the time of taking cognizance which appears to have been done in a mechanical manner. 'the relevant portion of the order sheet runs as follows:-" At this stage seen charge sheet under section 419/420/468/471/120B IPC against accused 1. Shyamal Chatterjee. 2. Murari Adhikari, 3. Nemai Koley, 4. Snail Bose @ Sarajendra Bose, 5. Alok Shame, 6. Swapan Manna 7. Ramesh Kodal cognizance is taken'. Scrutiny reveals that apart from the word "cognizance" underlined by me, the rest were written by the officer presenting the record before the learned S.D.J.M. There is no mention that statements and documents as are required to be incorporated or annexed with the charge sheet in terms of section 173(5) Cr PC were there and as such the learned S.D.J.M. simply took cognizance on the basis of report under section 173(2) Cr PC. Accordingly, cognizance is bad.
;


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