Sengupta, J. - (1.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : - A Division Bench has referred the present revisional applications, in which common question of law is involved, to reconsider the earlier Special Bench decision of this Court in the case of Saktisadhan Majhi & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal reported in 1994 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (Calcutta) - 137 in the light of Supreme Court decision in State of West Bengal v. Falguni Dutta reported in 1993 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (S.C.) 123. The question relates to the interpretation of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by the State of West Bengal (West Bengal Act XXIV of 1988), which came into force with effect from 2nd May, 1989.
(2.) The amended provision of Section 167(5) of the Amendment Act of 1988 reads as follows : "(5) If in respect of - (i) any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months, or (ii) any case exclusively triable by a Court of Session or a case under Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) the investigation is not concluded within a period of three years, or (Hi) any case other than those mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) the investigation is not concluded within a period of two years from the date on which the accused arrested or made his appearance, The Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence and shall discharge the accused unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the periods mentioned in this sub-section is necessary."
(3.) In the case of Saktisadhan Majhi (supra) two points, which fell for consideration, were as follows : (1) Whether sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code had any retrospective operation and would govern all investigations initiated even before the commencement of the said amendment, and (2) Whether taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of an investigation, which continued beyond the statutory period or on the basis of the charge-sheet beyond the statutory period and subsequent trial thereafter, would be bad in law. It was held in the case of Saktisadhan Majhi (supra) that the amended provision of sub-section (5) of Section 167 would not have any retrospective operation and it would not apply to investigations already concluded before the amending provision came into force, but it would apply to the investigation initiated before but not concluded and thus pending on the date on which the amendment came into force. As regards cognizance of offence and trial thereafter on the basis of investigation carried out and charge-sheet submitted beyond the statutory period, it was held by the Special Bench that if such investigation is continued beyond the period and charge-sheet submitted thereafter, without any order of the Magistrate under sub-section (5) or from the Sessions Judge under sub-section (6) of Section 167, taking cognizance of offence on the basis of such charge- sheet would be bad and void.;