LexDURGESH CHANDRA SAHA versus BIMALCHANDRA SAHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DURGESH CHANDRA SAHA v. BIMALCHANDRA SAHA & ORS. NOVEMBER 23, 1995 B [G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 197~Section 167 (5) as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act (Act 24 of 1988}-Inte1pretation of-Power to stop investigation after expily of three years-Applicability of Section 167(5) C as amended by West Bengal Act-Object of provision. Respondents were prosecuted on a complaint lodged by the appel- lant. The investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed u/ss 148/149/307/326/302 of Indian Penal Code against the respondents. The D Court took cognizance of the offences in the year 1988. The respondents claimed discharge on the ground that in view of amendment of section 167(5) of Criminal Procedure Code by the West Bengal Amendment Act, as enforced w.e.f. 2.5. 1989, the trial against them should come to an end by stopping investigation. The application was dismissed. In revision, the High Court allowed the claim of the accused while holding that in view of E the amendment of section 167(5), the investigation of the entire case was required to be stopped by the Trial Court after expiry of three years from the first date of appearance of the accused and the Court had also a duty to discharge all the accused after expiry of the said period of three. years. Tiie present appeal had been filed against the said judgment of the High F Court. The appellant submitted that the language of section 167 (5) as amended by the West Bengal Act indicates that the provision will be made applicable where the investigation is still pending and it is only when the investigation has not been completed within a period of three years from G the date of appearance of the accused in the criminal case, the Criminal Court was required to stop the investigation and to discharge the accused and that in the instant case, the investigation had already been completed and a chargesheet had been filed and as the court had also taken cog- nizance of the charges, selection 167(5)(ii) Cr. P.C. had no application. It H was submitted that section 167(5) Cr. P.C. as amended in West Bengal 612 D.C. SAHA v. B.C. SAHA 613 imposes a responsibility on the Court namely to stop any further inves- A tigation and simultaneously to discharge the accused persons against whom the investigation was then pending because both these actions form one invisible course of action. The respondents contended that the amend- ment of section 167(5) was made to give effect to the inviolable right of the accused under Art. 21 of the Constitution and if will be only appropriate B to hold that u/s 167 (5) Cr. P.C. the accused would be entitled to be discharged even if investigation has been completed but more time than that specified in Sec. 167(5) has elapsed from the date of first appearance of the accused in Court and the filing of the charge sheet or completion of investigation in the concerned Criminal case; that two actions required to be taken by the Court u/s 167(5) Cr. P.C. namely stopping of further investigation and discharging the accused are two separate actions, one not being dependent on the other and that liberal construction of Sec. 167 (5) is fully justified as the real purpose of amendment namely prevent- c ing the undesirable prolonging the agony of a criminal case seriously prejudicing the right to personal liberty will be frustrated if the investiga- D tion is allowed to be completed leisurely exceeding a period of three years from the date of first appearance of the accused without any justification. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : The language of section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by the West Bengal Act is quite clear in indicating that the said section is applicable only in a case where the investigation was still pending but not in a case where investigation had been completed E and the chargesheet had been filed. Section 167(5) Cr. P.C. as amended is F intended to ensure speedy completion of investigation within the time frame specified therein otherwise to face an order of discharge of the accused against whom investigation without any just cause to the satisfac- tion of the Court has been kept pending. Where investigation has been completed a different situation not contemplated under section 167(5) Cr. G P.C. emerges. If a criminal case is kept pending for a very long time without any just cause thereby seriously effectin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.