( 1 ) F. I. R. in this case was lodged on 26-5-1978 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code. The accused appears to have been arrested the same day. But the challan was filed on 15-11-1979. The accused was summoned on 7-3-1980. Since the M. L. C. filed with the challan did not disclose the nature of the injuries the challan was returned on 19-9-1980 to the SHO directing him to further investigate the case. The challan was again put up on 26-11-1981, by the SHO with the report that the duplicate of the MLC was not available, but Dr. Anil Gupta had deposed in the accident claims case that Dr. Arun Goel had found multiple fractures on various parts of the body of the injured. Thereupon, the accused was again summoned and the case stood for proceedings under Section 251 Cr. P. C. It was contended then before the learned Magistrate that ;-

(1) on 15-11-1979, the Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance because he could not do so on an incomplete challan, and he in fact took cognizance on 26-11-1981, and by then the limitation provided in Section 468 Cr. P. C. had expired in respect of all the offences;

(2) Even if it were held that the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 15-11-1979, he did not do so in respect of an offence under Section 338 because the nature othe injuries were not known. He shall be deemed to have taken cognizance only under Sections 279/337 IPC. That was also barred by limitations on that date under Section 468 Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate by his order of 27-1-1983 held that neither the investigation nor the charge sheet filed in the case on 15-11-1979 was incomplete and the court had taken cognizance on 15--11-1979. Once the court takes cognizance, it shall continue until the decision of the case. In that view of the matter. Section 468 Cr. P. C. was not attracted. He rejected the contention.

( 3 ) AN application was then moved on 12-5-1983 under Section 258 Cr. P. C. praying that the investigation was required to be stopped under Section 167 (5) Cr. P. C. after expiry of six months from the date of arrest of the accused if the investigation is not concluded within that period, and where the investigation continues after expiry of the said period and the court takes cognizance of a case instituted on such investigation, such cognizance is bad in law. The accused should be discharged. The learned Magistrate rejected the application. Hence, the present petition.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the accused disputes all the propositions of the learned Magistrate. As regards the first contention, I agree with the learned Magistrate that the court shall be deemed to have taken cognizance on 15-11-1979 of all the offences. There was no need to return the Challan for the purpose of re-submitting it with the medical opinion as to the nature of the injuries and the act of the Magistrate in doing so was unwarranted. The opinion could be obtained even later on. He could even himself form the opinion whether the injuries were grievous or not. Yet it cannot be said that he could not or did not take cognizance. The objection regarding Section 468 Cr. P. C. was, therefore, rightly rejected.

( 5 ) AS to the other matter, it appears that Sub-section (5) was added to Section 167 by the joint Committee of Parliament vide page xvi of its report to prevent the chronic malady of protracted investigation. It: said :-

"a duther provision has been made in the newly added Sub-section (5) to the effect that if the investigation is not completed within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested in a case where the offence is not punishable with imprisonment for more than two years, the Magistrate may pass on order stopping further investigation and discharging the accused unless the investigation officer satisfied the Magistrate that there are special reasons for continuance of the investigation in the interest of justice. "sub-section (5) that was inserted