AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J.

1. THE short but interesting question of law which calls for determination in this case is whether Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would govern the investigation into an offence falling within the ambit of Section 7l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as amended in 1981.

2. SHORTLY stated the facts are that the petitioner Jnan Prakash Agarwala was arrested on 9th June, 1985. On 11th June, 1985, FIR was lodged with the Officer- in- Charge, Nalhati P.S. On 17th June, 1985, Biswanath Agarwalla, the owner of the godown where search was conducted by the District Enforcement Branch, moved a writ application before this Court challenging, inter alia, the legality and validity of the seizure of Kerosene Oil made on 9th June, 1985, as well as FIR dated 11th June, 198S. An interim order was passed by this Writ Court staying the proceeding under the FIR till 24th June, 1985. The said interim order was thereafter extended and the Special Officer was appointed by the learned Single Judge for reverification of the stock. An appeal was preferred against the said interim order in FMAT No. 2268 of 1985 and stay application was also filed in the said appeal by the State. The Appeal Bench directed the authorities to go on with the investigation. On 24th July, 1985, the said stay application was disposed of by directing the authorities to continue with investigation but the authorities were restrained from filing the charge sheet without the leave of the Court and from arresting the said Writ petitioner.

On 26th September, 1985 an application was made on behalf of the State for granting leave to file charge sheet in connection with the aforesaid case and the Appeal Bench granted leave to file the charge sheet. On 7th November, 1989, the petitioner moved the Special Court at Birbhum with a prayer made under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping of the proceedings. In dealing with the said application the learned Special Judge observed that the charge sheet being No. 41 dated 17.7.89 said to have been submitted by the Investigating Officer, before S. P. Head Quarters, Enforcement Branch by letter no. 1395/EB had not been received by the Court till then. The learned Judge, inter alia, observed that "the Court is still in the dark if the Charge Sheet had actually been sent to Court". The learned Judge directed that a copy of his order be sent to the S. P., Head Quarters, Enforcement Branch, West Bengal, and the said S. P. to be impressed upon for the necessity of submission of the charge sheet. The learned Judge further observed that "in due course of the procedure, charge sheet ought to have been received by the Court by then". The learned Judge fixed 7th December, 1989, for the appearance of the accused persons and report by S.P.

3. ON 7th December, 1989, the learned Judge observed that the Charge Sheet had not yet reached the Court. ON perusal of R.T. Message sent by the Investigating Officer it appeared to the learned Judge that the charge sheet had been received by one Gour Gopal Goswarrrrt, S.I. Rampurhat P. S. who has been directed to arrange production of the charge sheet alongwith the Case Diary before the learned Judge as far back as 7'th November, 1989. Yet no step was taken for production of the charge sheet. The learned Judge directed Rampurhat Police Station to arrange submission of the charge sheet and further directed for sending copy of his order to the Court Inspector of Suri Court, asking the said Court Inspector to negotiate with the Circle Inspector, Rampurhat so that the Charge Sheet may be received by the learned Judge within a fortnight. The learned Judge also directed the learned Public Prospect or to send R.T. Message to Enforcement Branch, Headquarters, West Bengal, Calcutta quoting the substance of order.

4. ULTIMATELY on 14th December, L989, charge sheet was submitted before the Special Court at Birbhum whereupon cognizance of the offence w