Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Nirmal Yadav, J.
Sohan Lal
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3195 of 1993,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 22, 2006
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167 (5) - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7, 12A - Offence under Essential Commodities Act - Case is triable by special court as summons case - Provisions of Section 167 (5) of the code are fully attracted. (Para 7)
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167 (5), 482 - Quashing of proceeding - FIR lodged under Section 7 of E.C. Act - Investigation not completed within 6 months - Challan put up in the court after three years - FIR quashed - Special Court cannot entertain and act on a charge - sheet or police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code on the basis of investigation conducted after expiry of six months. (Para 6 and 7)
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a challenge to the authority of the Special Court to proceed with a trial based on investigation conducted after the expiry of six months, as stipulated under Section 167(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners argued that the investigation and subsequent charge sheet were filed beyond this period, rendering the proceedings invalid (!) (!) .
The offence pertains to possession of high diesel oil without permits and failure to display stock, registered under the relevant Act. The FIR was lodged in 1988, and the challan was filed in 1991, approximately three years later, which the petitioners claimed violated the six-month investigation limit (!) .
The petitioners contended that since the offences are triable as summons cases under the Act, the provisions of Section 167(5) of the Code, which limit investigation to six months unless extended for special reasons, are fully applicable. They argued that the absence of prior permission from the Court to extend investigation beyond six months invalidates the proceedings (!) (!) .
The State argued that the provisions of Section 167(5) do not apply to offences under the Act being triable in a summary manner, and that irregularities in investigation do not automatically invalidate the charge sheet or proceedings (!) .
The Court, after careful consideration, held that since the case is triable as a summons case under the Act, the provisions of Section 167(5) are indeed applicable. The delay in filing the challan beyond six months without seeking permission from the Court was deemed a violation of procedural requirements (!) .
Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings based on the FIR and charge sheet, emphasizing that continuing with the trial under these circumstances would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings were deemed to have been initiated in contravention of the statutory time limits (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the necessity of obtaining prior permission for extending investigations beyond the statutory period when applicable, especially in cases triable as summons or in summary manner under special Acts.
Nirmal Yadav, J.
1. Vide this petition, the petitioners have basically challenged the power of the trial Court to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners on the basis of investigation carried out after expiry of six months as provided under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code).
2. The allegation against the petitioners firstly, was that they were found in possession of 2000 litres high diesel oil without any permit or licence and thereby contravened the provisions of Punjab Light Diesel Oil and Kerosene Dealers Licences Order, 1970 and secondly, that petitioners had not displayed the stock position of the high diesel oil. Alleging the aforesaid offences, FIR No. 32 dated 11.3.1988, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the Act) was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana. It is pleaded that police was not able to put challan in Court for almost 3 years and challan was presented on 6.2.1991. It is further pleaded that charges framed against the accused on the basis of the investigation conducted beyond six months, are contrary to the provisions of Section 167(5) of the Code and, therefore, the same cannot be entertained. Thus, the entire trial is vitiated.
3. In the reply by way of affidavit of Jaswant Singh, Inspector, SHO, Police Station City Jagraon, filed on behalf of State, it has been stated that delay in filing challan in the Court was on account of extra-ordinary circumstances viz. prevalence of terrorism in the State at that time. It is further stated that no limitation for filing challan has been prescribed. There is no provision of discharge in such a case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Special Court cannot entertain and act on a charge-sheet or a police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code on the basis of investigation conducted after expiry of six months as provided under Section 167(5) of the Code. He further argued that the cases under the Act being triable in summary manner should be tried according to the procedure prescribed for summons-cases in the Code. Thus, a Special Court is empowered by Clause (c) of Section 2AA(1) of the Act to exercise same powers which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under Section 167 of the Code and, therefore, the provisions of Section 167(5) of the Code are fully attracted in the present case. He argued that Special Court can stop further investigation into an offence if investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused unless for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of investigation beyond that period is necessary. It is argued that prosecution has nowhere stated that any permission of the Special Court was sought to continue with the investigation after expiry of six months. In support of his arguments, learned counsel referred to a decision of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Falguni Dutta and another, 1993(2) Recent Criminal Reports 431 (SC). It was further argued that every citizen has a right to speedy trial of the case pending against him, which is also in public interest. The FIR was registered in the year 1988 and challan was presented on 6.2.1991 and charges were framed on 6.4.1991. Even upto 6.4.1993 when passing of final order was stayed by this Court, no effective proceedings had been undertaken. The sword of trial to-be-conducted has been hanging over the petitioner for the last 17-18 years. Thus, the delay in completion of proceedings has caused a grave prejudice to the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that the provisions of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not attracted to the present case as alleged offences are to be tried under the special Act. It i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
