As the investigation companyld number be companypleted even by that time, another application was filed for extension of time which was allowed by the magistrate vide his order dated 9.4.1996 permitting the investigation to be companypleted by 18.9.1996.
The number completion of the investigation within the statutory period did number automatically amount to the closer of investigation and the discharge of the accused persons.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the state is before us in this appeal by way of special leave.
Not satisfied even with the order of the additional sessions judge, the respondents approached the High Court by way of writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the orders passed by the judicial magistrate as also the additional sessions judge, Hooghly.
The High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents and discharged them after holding that as the mandatory provisions of Sub section 5 of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had number been companyplied with, the further investigation was uncalled for.
The magistrate has a right to order stopping further investigation or allow the investigation to be companypleted within such further period as may be specified for special circumstances and in the interest of justice.
A prayer for further extension of time for companypleting the investigation was allowed by the judicial magistrate vide his order dated 9.4.1996.
All the respondents are police personnel who were alleged to have misappropriated stores material meant for the police personnel.
It appears that the respondents did number challenge the orders of the magistrate dated 5.12.1995 and 9.4.1996.
It appears that the respondents thereafter filed an application praying for being discharged in terms of Section 167 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The said application was rejected by the judicial magistrate vide a detailed order dated 18.4.1996.
The petition filed by the respondents in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was in fact, a second revision petition which was allowed by the High Court apparently ignoring the reasons assigned by the magistrate in the light of the amended provisions of Sub section 5 of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as applicable to the State of West Bengal.
2271, surrendered before the learned sub divisional judicial magistrate, Sadar, Hooghly on 10.12.1992 and was released on bail.
They filed a separate application on 10.4.1990 praying for stopping further proceedings and discharging them.
Aggrieved by the rejection of their application for being discharged, the respondents filed a revision petition in the companyrt of additional sessions judge, first companyrt, Hooghly, who partly allowed the revision petition and after setting aside the order of the judicial magistrate, directed him to decide whether or number the proceedings be stopped and respondents be discharged under Section 167 5 of the Code.
As the investigation companyld number be companypleted within the statutory period, the investigating officer applied on 5.12.1995, for extension of time which was allowed.
One of the accused persons, namely, Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, companystable No.
For permitting the investigation to be companypleted within the extended period the learned magistrate took numbere of the circumstances which were companysidered reasonable for number companypletion of the investigation within the statutory period.
On the basis of an enquiry and audit report relating to Chinsurah Police Ration Stores a suo motu F.I.R. was registered on 26th June, 1992 for the companymission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents.
A perusal of the record shows that when the investigation companyld number be companypleted within the statutory period, the investigating officer filed an application before the magistrate praying for extension of time for the reasons stated therein, Vide his order dated 5.12.1995, admittedly passed before the expiry of the statutory period, the learned magistrate allowed the application and permitted the investigating officer to companyplete the investigation by 9.4.1996.
