MAGISTRATE CAN’T ISSUE AUTOMATIC ORDER WITHOUT ANYTHING ELSE TO STOP INVESTIGATION UPON EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS: CALCUTTA HC
The Calcutta High Court in the case Kamal Ghosh & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr observed and has held that under Section 167(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein there cannot be an automatic order issued by a magistrate, which being without anything else, in order to further investigate on expiry of six months from the date of arrest.
The single judge bench of Sugato Majumdar in the case observed that as stated under section 167 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it has been stated that the Magistrate can stop the investigation on contingency that it has been failed by the Investigating Officer in order to satisfy the Magistrate for special reasons and the same being in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation which is beyond the period of six months as it is necessary. Therefore, there cannot be an automatic order without anything else on the expiry for a period of six months which being from the date of arrest. In the present case, the plea was filed by the petitioner that the Investigating Officer was being allowed time beyond a period of six months in terms of various impugned orders which is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate without conforming with the provisions of Section 167 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
It has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, S. N. Arefin before the court that that Section 167 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, there being a specific time limit of six months to conclude investigation which is from the date of arrest and it is the duty of the Magistrate to make an order wherein stopping further investigation into the offence beyond the said time period of six months.
COURT OBSERVATIONS
It has been admitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that at the time of hearing candidly admitted that no step was taken or no petition was made before the Trial Court while objecting to the impugned orders wherein extending time for the investigation. However, the petitioner was silent at that time but suddenly the Petitioner woke up into the action after filing of the charge sheet when the investigation was completed, clubbing several actions against several courts together. Thus, the objections made with regards to the extension of time at this belated stage and the same is not sustainable. Further, it has also been contended by the petitioner that CMM continued to allow time to IO in a mechanical manner through the impugned orders and an error has been committed in not taking cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure and transferring the same to the another Metropolitan Magistrate for taking cognizance. Therefore, the court in the case observed and has held that under Section 460(e) of Code of Criminal Procedure, if any Magistrate who is not empowered by law to do any of the following things entirely among others to take cognizance of an offence as stated under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190 which being erroneously in good faith, the court cannot set aside the proceeding merely on that ground.