( 1 ) MR. S. R. DIVETIA, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, requested to convert this Special Criminal Application into Criminal Revision Application. Request granted.

( 2 ) THE salient and substantial question of law that looms for determination may be stated as under :-"whether the offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, extending imprisonment for a term of three years would be a summary triable case or warrant triable case, and what is the effect of the provisions of S. 167 (5) of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 ?"

( 3 ) THE points which are said to have arisen for determination and which have been formulated in the memo of this Criminal Revision Application are as under :-" (1) Whether the offences enumerated above under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, wherein the conviction and sentence prescribed is three years is a warrant triable or summons triable case ? (2) Whether in a warrant triable case, S. 167 (5) of the Cr. P. C. is applicable ? (3) Whether S. 116 of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Chapter XXI of the Cr. Procedure Code, 1973 would be applicable ?"

( 4 ) THE facts giving rise to the present revision application are in narrow compass and are not in dispute. Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 are alleged to have committed offences punishable under S. 65 (e), 66 (1) (b), 81 and 85 (1) (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. At about 9-15 p. m. on 17/07/1982, respondent Nos. 1 to 14 have been alleged to have bought and consumed the intoxicant in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, or any rule, regulation or order made or of any licence, permit, pass or authorisation issued thereunder, at the cabin of respondent No. 15, who in contravention of the provisions of the Act and without any licence, pass or permit, sold the intoxicant to respondent Nos. 1 to 14. As is recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the complaint is long and detailed one. The respondent Nos. 1 to 14 were arrested on 17/07/1982, whereas the respondent no. 15 was arrested on 19/07/1982. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted on 13/10/1983. The charge-sheet was thus submitted after the lapse of the period of one year, two months and twenty-six days, after arrest of the respondentsaccused.

( 5 ) THE respondents, therefore, submitted the application Exh. 2 9/06/1984 contending, inter alia, that the offences alleged against the accused persons were triable as summary cases. The charge-sheet in respect of the offences alleged against the accused persons was not presented within a period of six months from the date on which the accused persons were arrested. The accused persons, therefore, prayed to be discharged on the ground that the investigation was not completed within the period of six months from the date of their arrest nor the officer making the investigation sought extension of time in investigation into the offences and that there were no reasons to continue the investigation beyond the period of six months and no such order was passed by the learned Magistrate. The accused further stated that in the trial for the offences against them under the Bombay Prohibition Act, the Magistrate had to follow the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal procedure for the trial of summary cases in which the appeal lies and pursuant to s. 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial against the accused persons would be the trial of summons cases. According to the accused persons, no cognizance of the offences against them has been taken. The accused persons thus sought to dismiss the complaint, discharging them for the offences alleged against them.

( 6 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navsari, by his judgment and order dated 11/07/1984, disposed of the aforesaid application Exh. 29 holding that the offence under S. 65 of the Bombay Prohibition Act provides punishment to the extent of three years and as per the definition of S. 2 (x) of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to the off