SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. This Criminal Writ application has been filed in the following circumstances. A proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up as against the petitioners on 10th of May, 1974. After service of notice on them, on 5th of September, 1974, the petitioners filed their show cause. On 17th of October, 1974, both parties requested the Magistrate to fix a date for producing their witnesses and he fixed 2nd of November 1974, for the purpose. On 2nd of November, 1974, the parties appeared but they did not produce their witnesses. No witness therefore, could be examined on that date. For some reason or the other the witnesses could not be examined even on several dates fixed in the case thereafter. On 1st of March, 1975, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners that since the proceeding had been pending for more than six months, it stood automatically terminated. On that question arguments of the lawyers of both the parties were heard on 3rd of March, 1975 and 10th of March, 1975 was fixed for orders. The Magistrate could not, however, pass the order on 10th of March, 1975 and several other dates fixed thereafter for the purpose. He passed the orders on 15th of May 1975, rejecting the petition of the petitioners. He held that he was satisfied that even on 15th of May 1975, there was serious apprehension of a breach of the peace at the hands of the petitioners and therefore, termination of the proceeding might cause danger on the life of the first party to the proceeding (respondent no. 4 before this court at whose instance the proceeding was started) and under the circumstances it was not safe to terminate the proceeding but to continue the same in order to avoid serious breach of the peace. As against that order the petitioners filed an application in revision before the Sessions Judge of Saharsa. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed their application by his order dated 17th of June, 1975. As against the order of the Sessions Judge, the petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application before this court which was dismissed at the time of admission on the ground that really it was second application for revision before this court and was not maintainable as the petitioners had already moved the Sessions court in revision. Then the petitioners filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. On behalf of the petitioners reliance has been placed on sub-section (6) of section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and it has been submitted that as the enquiry could not be completed within a period of six months from the date the proceeding was drawn up, it stood automatically terminated. Sub– Section (6) of section 116 of the Cede reads as follows:–

"(6) The enquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement and if such enquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing the Magistrate otherwise directs;

Provided that where any person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding against that reason unless terminated earlier, shall stand terminated on the expiry of a period of six months of such detention."

In reply it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that an inquiry under section 116 of the Code does not start with the drawing up of the proceedings. It starts only when some evidence is led in the proceeding and as in this case no evidence was led there was no commencement of the enquiry. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondents placed before us the decision in Madhu Limaye & another vs. Ved Murti, A.I.R. 1971 S.C.2481. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to a recent decision of a Bench of this Court in Nokha Singh & others vs. Parvat