B.S.YADAV, J. - (1.) THE facts leading to this Criminal revision petition are that on 30th October, 1980 Kalyan Singh PW 1 and some other residents of Rewari filed an application before the Station House Officer. Rewari alleging therein inter-alia that the respondent Shankar Lal was a quarrelsome type of character and of criminal antecedents and was a sort of nuisance to the public at large, since he often intimidated them and threatened violence. The application was marked to Head Constable, Dhani Ram for investigation. During investigation. Head constable Dhani Ram found that the respondent was a problem chap The respondent did not cooperate in the investigation and tried to assault Kalyan Singh in his (Dhani Ram's) presence. Head Constable Dhani Ram thereupon arrested the respondent under section 107 read with section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The police presented calendera in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 31st October, 1980 alongwith the respondent. On that day the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate released the respondent on his executing bond (for appearance) in the sum of Rs. 5000/- and adjourned the case to 11th November, 1980. On this adjourned date, notice under section 111 of the Code was served upon respondent and he was made to understand its contents and the case was adjourned to 25th November, 1980. It is not material to refer to the other dates to which the case adjourned. The prosecution evidence was closed on 28th April, 1981. The case was adjourned to 4th May, 1981 for the respondent's evidence. On 4th May, J981 no defence evidence was present and the case was adjourned to 8th May, 1931. On the said date, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the order which when translated in' English somewhat reads as follows : "Respondent present. Respondent wants time to present his defence. On behalf of the prosecution an application has been filed to extend the period of enquiry. Therefore, in the interest of justice the period of trial is extended for a period of 6 months. The case to come up for defence evidence on 29.5.1981. 8.5.81. Sd/- SDM, Rewari" Proceedings continued before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, but in the mean time the respondent filed a revision petition which came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnual. He stayed further proceedings in the case vide order dated 19th September, 1981. When copy or the said order was received by the Magistrate, he adjourned the proceedings sine die vide order dated 22nd September, 1981.
(2.) REVISION petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that it had been filed beyond the period or limitation:' The learned trial Court revived the proceedings on 28th May, 1982 and after recording remaining evidence, vide order dated 6th July 1982 ordered the respondent to execute a bond in the sum of Rt. 1000/- for a period of six months' to keep peace and be of good behaviour during that period. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondent filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. He did not go into the merits of the case. He accepted the present respondent's contention that the trial Court had extended the period of enquiry without giving sufficient reasons. That objection was raised in view of section 116 (6). of the Code, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :- (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?' The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate did not satisfy as to what were the particular reasons as to why the inquiry could not be concluded within the statutory limitation and as to what was the peculiar occasion to extend its scope or duration. Accordingly, he accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, Kalyan Singh- complainant has come to this Court in this revision.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that under section 116 (6) of the Code, the trial Magistrate conducting the inquiry under Chapter 8 of the Code, has been empowered to extend the period of inquiry, though for special reasons to be recorded in writing, if the inquiry cannot be completed within the period of six months from the date of its commencement. According to him the special reasons have to be interpreted with respect to the facts of a particular case. He pointed out that in the present case the respondent had not brought his defence evidence on 4th May, 1981 and on his request the case had to be adjourned to 8th May, 1981, on which date he again made a request for producing defence evidence and as it is settled principle or criminal jurisprudence that an accused or respondent in criminal proceedings should be given full opportunity to defend himself. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was justified in granting another adjournment to the respondent for producing his evidence and as the period of six months was expiring, the prosecution filed an application for the extension of time for the conclusion of the inquiry and it was to extended by the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 8th May, 1981 for a period of six months. I am of the opinion that the above arguments have force. Whether there were special reasons for extending the period of enquiry have to be determined with reference to the facts of an individual case. In the present case the respondent himself was responsible for not producing the evidence and he was seeking adjournment after adjournment. Therefore, on his request the learned Magistrate granted the adjournment and extended the period of enquiry. The respondent cannot have any grievance against the said order.;