NLRMAL KANTI ROY ETC. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL ETC.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 1147 · Decided: 23-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

NlRMAL KANTJ ROY ETC. 
v. 
ST ATE OF WEST BENGAL ETC. 
APRIL 23, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI., K.T. THOMAS AND 
S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
A 
B 
S.167(5)(6) as amended by West Bengal Act 24 of 1988-0~der of C 
Magistrate stopping investigation and discharging accused-Held, is not 
intended to be automatic equal to failure to complete investigation within 
prescribed period-Power is conferred on Magistrate to refrain from passing 
the order if Investigating Officer satisfied him that in interest of justice it is 
necessary to proceed with investigation beyond the prescribed period and D 
there are special reasons to do so-Indian Penal Code, 1860-S 409-West 
Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1949. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Essential Commodities Act, 1955: 
S.468/ss. 7(/)(a)(il), I 2A 12AA(l) proviso-Offence punishable under E 
s. 7.E C Act-Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation-
Jurisdiction of Special Court to award sentence only upto 2 years-Held, is 
different from understanding the extent of sentence-Offence u/s 7 (I)( a)(ii) is 
punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto 7 years and would not 
attract bar of limitation under s. 468 of the Code. 
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 1998, who was involved 
in case under s.409 IPC in the State of West Bengal, surrendered himself 
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.3.1993 and was released 
F 
on bail, on 22.9.1995 he filed an application before the Magistrate for 
discharging him under s.167(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the G 
ground that the investigation was not completed within two years of his 
appearance before the court. The Magistrate dismissed the application on the 
ground that the case was triable only by a Special Judge under the West 
Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1949 and, therefore, 
an order under s.167(5) could be passed only by the Special Judge concerned. 
In a revision application filed by the appellant, Single Judge of the High H 
1147 
1148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A Court held that the Magistrate was competent to pass the order u/s 167(5) 
of the Code despite ouster of his jurisdiction to try the offence by the Special 
Court Act, However, the Single Judge, on an application by the Investigating 
Officer, granted him further time to complete the investigation. The appellant 
challenged the order in the present appeal. Meanwhile the charge-sheet was 
laid in the case within the extended time. 
B 
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1998 was prosecuted 
under s. 7(l)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He appeared in the 
court on 26.11.1993 on which date he was enlarged on bail. The charge-sheet 
"1 
was laid on 6.1.1995. The appellant challenged before the High Court the 
C order by which the court took cognizance on the ground that the court had 
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in view of the bar contained 
in s.468 of the Code. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the 
offence under s.7 of the E.C. Act was punishable with imprisonment for a 
term not exceeding 2 years and the period of limitation wa·s three years from 
the date of offence. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal. 
D 
Since interpretation ofs.167(5) of the Code, as amended by the State 
of West Bengal, was relevant for deciding these appeals and a two Judge 
Bench of this Court felt that there was conflict between the ratio in F alguni 
Datta 's case and that of Durgesh Chandra Saha**, the Bench referred these 
E appeals for decision by a larger Bench. 
F 
In Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 1998 it was contended for the appellant 
that time could not have been extended without the Investigating Officer 
moving for such extension before the expiry of the period provided under 
s.167(5) of the Code. 
For the appellant in Criminal Appeal no. 476of1998 it was contended 
:.... 
that since the case was triable in a summary manner by the Special Court 
r 
constituted. under s.12-A of the E.C. Act, in view of the proviso to clause (I) 
of s.12AA(l) of the Act the sentence of imprisonment would not exceed two 
years and this limit fixed by the Parliament would have the effect of altering 
G the extent of punishment of the offence u/s 7 of the E.C. Act to imprisonment 
for a period of two years. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court. 
HELD : I.I. The High Court was right in holding that t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.