Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 216
High Court Of Calcutta
P. K. BISWAS
ANUP KUMAR ROY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R. 1136 Of 1994
Decided On : 04/02/2002
DEBASIS ROY, KAZI SAFIULLA, MADHURI DAS
The investigating agency cannot file a charge sheet after the expiry of the statutory period without obtaining permission from the court or the Sessions Judge, and the court cannot take cognizance of such a charge sheet.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 167(5) - SECTION 167(6) - SECTION 173(2) - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - INVESTIGATION BEYOND STATUTORY PERIOD - JURISDICTION OF COURT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested and later discharged from the case due to the investigating agency's failure to submit a charge sheet within the statutory period. However, after a lapse of about 4 years, the investigating agency filed a charge sheet without obtaining permission from the court or the Sessions Judge to continue the investigation beyond the statutory period.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the investigating agency's action in filing the charge sheet without following the procedure laid down in Section 167(6) of the Cr.P.C. was illegal and that the cognizance taken by the court on the basis of such charge sheet was void.
Issues: 1. Whether the investigating agency can file a charge sheet after the expiry of the statutory period without obtaining permission from the court or the Sessions Judge? 2. Whether the court can take cognizance of a charge sheet filed beyond the statutory period?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 167(5) of the Cr.P.C. and held that the order of discharge of the accused is not an automatic sequel to the failure to complete the investigation within the statutory period. 2. The court further held that the investigating agency can continue the investigation beyond the statutory period only if it satisfies the court that it is necessary in the interest of justice and that there are special reasons to do so. 3. The court also held that the court should not take cognizance of a charge sheet filed beyond the statutory period without following the procedure laid down in Section 167(6) of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner and directed the lower court to drop the case.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of one Anup Kumar Roy, petitioner herein seeking to quash the proceeding of G. R. Case No. 327 of 1981 now pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta and which arose out of section 'a' (Shyampukur P. S.) case No. 327 dated 29. 9. 81 under sections 304/314/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the filing of the present revisional application are as under :-THE present petitioner was arraigned as an accused in connection with aforesaid case for commission of an offence punishable under sections 304/314/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly committed by him in collusion with others.
( 3 ) IN the aforesaid case, it was, inter alia, alleged that on 28. 9. 81 at about 7 P. M. . Smt. Parul Rani Halder, aged about 25 years, widow of late Nirmal Chandra Halder, being conceived was admitted at Green Ways Nursing Home situated at 187b, A. P. C. Road, 1st floor, Calcutta-4 under Shyampukur Police Station, under Dr. Birendra Mohan Banerjee for causing abortion and she died due to miscarriage caused by Dr. Birendra Mohan Banerjee and in order to conceal the evidence, Dr. Birendra Mohan Banerjee with the help of his wife Smt. Mukti Banerjee and Dr. Anup Roy and Dipak Sharmacharjee removed the dead body of Parul Halder at Nimtala burning ghat on 29. 9. 81 early morning with the help of a van of Hindu Satkar Samity and got the dead body of Parul Halder cremated at Nimtola burning ghat with the false name of Parul Rani Halder as Parul Rani Devi after giving false address in the death certificate as well as in the death register and aforesaid Mukti Banerjee signed in the death Register as Chitra Mondal to conceal the evidence of admission of Parul Halder in the Nursing Home as well as her death.
( 4 ) IT has been alleged by the petitioner that he is absolutely innocent and in no way connected with the aforesaid offence and he has been falsely tagged with the aforesaid case.
( 5 ) IT was further alleged by the petitioner that he was arrested on 29. 9. 81 in connection with the aforesaid case and subsequently released on bail on 30. 9. 81 and as he investigating agency had failed to complete the investigation within a considerable period the petitioner was discharged from the aforesaid case by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 10. 4. 85 for non-submission of the charge sheet.
( 6 ) IT has further been alleged that on 26. 5. 89, all on a sudden, the investigating agency after completion of the investigation submitted its report in final form, inter alia, alleging commission of an offence punishable under sections 304/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly committed by the present petitioner and Smt. Mukti Banerjee.
( 7 ) UPON receipt of the said report, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process against the present petitioner and the petitioner on receipt of the same appeared before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 29. 6. 89 and was released on bail.
( 8 ) IT has been alleged that since the investigation of this case was committed by the investigating agency in violation of the provision of section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by West Bengal Act No. 24/88 without taking any prior permission from the Court of the learned Magistrate for extension of the period, the present petitioner preferred an application before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta before whom the case has been transferred praying, inter alia, for dropping of the case as well as discharge of the present petitioner from the said case.
( 9 ) BUT the aforesaid learned Court was pleased, by his order dated 27. 5. 94, to turn down the aforesaid prayer of the present petitioner holding, inter alia, as the cognizance has already been taken, the app
