1. In connection with a motor accident resulting in the death of a person, a case under S. 279/304 A of the Indian Penal Code was registered with the Tollygunge Police Station on 9.7.77 and the petitioner was arrested on 10.7.77 being the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on the self-same day and the next day of remand was fixed on October 7, 1977. On the date of remand, namely, October 7, 1977 the Investigating Officer filed an application before the learned Magistrate praying for extension till 28.10.77 for completion of the investigation. The learned Magistrate however fixed the next date of remand on January 24, 1978 on which date a charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the petitioner under S. 279/304 A of the Indian Penal Code. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner on the self-same day praying that the charge-sheet that was submitted could not be taken notice of, nor cognizance can be taken thereupon having regard to the provision of S. 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioner, the investigating agency did not pray for extension of time for continuing the investigation after a lapse of six months from the date of arrest of the petitioner, and as such, the investigation beyond the period of six months which culminated in the submission of a charge-sheet was non est in the eye of law. The prayer of the petitioner having been rejected, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 10.7.77 and the period of six months referred to under S. 167(5) of the Code expired on 9.1.78 It is also not in dispute that the charge-sheet in the instant case was submitted on 24.1.78, that is, beyond the period of six months. An obligation is cast under S. 167(5) of the Code on the Investigating agency that in the event the investigation in a case triable according to the summons procedure is not concluded within a period of six months, the Investigating Officer has to pray for extension of time and on such a prayer being made, the learned Magistrate may for special reasons allow such prayer for extension of time for completion of investigation. As I have already indicated, in the instant case the prayer by the police that was made on 7.10.77 was only for time till 28.10.77, and not beyond that. In all such circumstances, the investigation in the instant case, which admittedly is a case triable according to the summons procedure, should have been completed by 9.1.78, and if it was not completed, it was the incumbent duty of the Investigating Officer to apply before the Magistrate before the expiry of the said period for extension of the time. Considering all these facts and circumstances, it must be held that in view of the provisions of S. 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the charge-sheet that was submitted in the instant case was without jurisdiction and the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance on the same.
3. In the result, the application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. The proceeding of case No. G.R 2029 of 1977 pending against the petition in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Alipore is hereby quashed.
Rule made absolute.