JUDGMENT :- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th March, 1993, passed by a single Bench of Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1238/92. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of Calcutta High Court inter alia came to the finding that in view of amendment of S. 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the West Bengal Amendment Act 24 of 1988), 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.

2. For the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties some of the events may be noted. On the 15th March, 1984, a complaint was lodged by the appellant in Gaighta police station, North 24 Paragans, West Bengal and on such complaint a police case No. 11 of 15th March, 1984 was initiated. On 8th February, 1988, the investigation was completed by the police and charge sheet was filed under Ss. 148/149/307/326/302 of IPC against the respondents Nos. 1-10 in the said case being numbered as G.R. Case No. 205 dated 15-5-1984. On 23rd of July, 1986 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bongaon took cognizance of the said offences in G.R. Case No. 205 of 1984. On 2nd May, 1989, S. 167(5) of Cr. P.C. was amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act, 24/88, Such amendment Act got the Presidents assent and the amended provision were enforced with effect from 2nd May, 1989.

3. Sub-section (5) of S. 167, Cr. P.C. as amended by the said West Bengal Act may be stated as hereunder :-

"167(5) : If in respect of-

(i) any case triable by a magistrate as a summons case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months. or

(ii) any case exclusively triable by Court of Session or a case under Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) the investigation is not concluded within a period of three years; or

(iii) any case other than those mentioned in Cl. (i) and (ii) investigation is not concluded within a period of two years from the date of which the accused was arrested or made his appearance, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping the further investigation into the offence and shall discharge the accused unless the officer making the investigation satisfied the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the periods mentioned in this sub-section is necessary."

4. The respondent accused contended before the learned Sessions Court by making an application that in view of such amended provision of S. 167(5) of Cr. P.C. the trial of the said criminal case should come to an end by stopping investigation and discharging all the accused persons. Such application however was dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge. The said order was challenged by making a revisional application before the Calcutta High Court and as aforesaid, the revisional application has been allowed by the High Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the language of S.167(5) as amended by the West Bengal Act clearly indicates that the provision of S. 167(5) will be made applicable where the investigation is still pending. It is only when the investigation has not been completed within a period of three years from the date of appearance of the accused in the criminal case, not only the Criminal Court was required to stop the investigation but also to discharge the accused. As in the instant case, the investigation had already been completed and a charge-sheet had been filed and as aforesaid, the Court had also taken cognizance of the said charges filed against the accused persons. Section 167(5) (ii) of the Cr. P.C. had no manner of application and the High Court had gone wrong in allowing the claim of the accused in passing an order of discharge in favour of the said accus