Charge sheet was however filed within the extended time.
Where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made and the accused has been discharged under sun section 5 , the Session Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub section 5 and direct further investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify.
As the investigation was number companypleted within two years therefrom, he moved the said Magistrate on 22.9.1995 for discharging him as provided in Section 167 5 of the Code.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, while dismissing the revision, held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was companypetent to pass the order under Section 167 5 of the Code despite ouster of his jurisdiction to try the offence as per the Special Court Act 1949.
During investigation of the case he applied for and got a pre arrest bail order and surrendered himself before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah on 18.3.1993 and was released on bail.
476 OF 1998 Arising out of SLP Criminal No.
Appellant challenge that order in revision before the High Court of Calcutta.
The Magistrate dismissed the application pointing out that the case was triable only by a Special judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Special Court Act 1949 For short the Special Court Act 1949 and hence an order stopping investigation and the companysequent discharge order under Section 167 5 companyld be passed only by that Special Judge companycerned.
Nonetheless, learned Single Judge granted further time to the Investigating Officer, on an application filed by him in that behalf as the said officer satisfied the High Court that he companyld number companyplete the investigation within the time schedule on account of his falling sick by jaundice.
1705 of 1997 J U D G E M E N T Thomas J. Leave granted A two judge bench has referred these cases to be decided by a larger bench upon a companytention that there is companyflict between the ratio in State of West Bengal vs. Falguni Dutta and others 1993 3 SCC 288 and that in Durgesh Chandra Shah vs. Vimal Chandra Shah 1996 1 SCC The question relates to the interpretation of Section 167 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by the State of West Bengal.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The facts in the criminal appeal arising from Special Leave Petition Criminal No.1609 of 1997 Nirmal Kanti Roy vs. State Of West Bengal are the following Appellant was involved as accused in an offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code.
