Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vs Pabba Anjaiah

This revision case is filed against the orders passed in S.T.C. No. 4/85 on the file of the special Judge for trial of cases under E.C. Act, Hyderabad date 19-9-1985. The State is the revision petitioner. The facts are :

A complaint is filed against the respondent who happened to be authorised fair-price shop dealer for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It is not in dispute that the trial is a summary trial and Section 167(5), Cr.P.C. applicable to the facts of the case. Section 167(5), P.C. reads as follows :

"(5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as summons case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice and continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary."

Here in the case before us, the accused is arrested on 9-6-1983, the investigation is completed on 19-12-1983 and the charge-sheet is filed in the court on 8-3-1984. The lower Court, on the ground that the charge-sheet is filed beyond six months of the arrest of the accused, ordered discharge of the accused. Against these orders, the present revision is filed.

The point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the order of the lower Court suffers from any illegality or from any material irregularity ?

It is not in dispute now that the investigation is not completed within six months and it was completed only some ten days thereafter. No doubt, immediately after the completion of six months from the date of arrest of accused, the could have some forward with an application to the Court for stopping further investigation of the case and the Court could have stopped further investigation and ordered release of the accused. But here in this case, no such order is passed by the lower Court even though investigation continued for ten days after the expiry of six months. What is more is, a charge-sheet is filed subsequently and a trial is going on and then only it is brought to the notice of the Court that the charge-sheet in this case is filed after the expiry of six months of the arrest of the accused and that investigation also continued beyond six months that is by ten days more. The Court thought that because the investigation went on beyond six months from the date of the arrest of the accused, it could as well stop the trial and discharge the accused. The lower Court came to that conclusion basing on a judgment of this Court in S. M. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 2 Andh LT 24, wherein my learned Brother Rama Rao, J. held as follows :

"It is obvious from Section 173, Cr.P.C. that filing of the charge-sheet is the culmination of investigation proceedings and as such it is an integral part of the investigation proceedings. An attempt to dissociate the process of filing charge-sheet from the investigation proceedings is not sanctioned by Section 173, Cr.P.C. or any other provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation only leads to filing of charge-sheet. In any event the filing of charge-sheet should necessarily coincide with the terminate of investigation. Therefore, the charge-sheet cannot be severed from the investigation proceedings. Even assuming that the charge-sheet does not form part of the investigation process, the learned public prosecutor is not able indicate the date on which the investigation was completed ....... It is not shown from the record or otherwise that the investigation was completed within the period of six months. The application was not filed for extension of time for investigation. The time limit prescribed u/s 167(5), Cr.P.C. is not adhered to. Therefore in view of non-completion of investigation within the time stipulated u/s 167(5), Cr.P.C. further proceedings are vitiated."

But this decision was not accepted by the Bench of this Court in Public Prosecutor v. B. Anjaneyulu, (1986) 1 APLJ (HC) 357 : (1986 Cri LJ 1456), wherein their Lordships observed as follows :

"The Special Court can take cognizance of a police Report u/s 173(2) of the Code based on the investigation done within the period permitted by Section 167(5) of the Code, even if the Report is made beyond six months. However, in view of Section 167(5) of the Code the Court shall give a direction to stop further investigation after the expiry of six months of the arrest of the accused unless the period for investigation is extended by it, as contemplated by that sub-section."

What we understand by this observation of their Lordship is that a case taken is that a case taken on file u/s 173(2) cannot be quashed. All that the Court entitled to do is to ignore the investigation made by the police beyond the time of six months and confine the case with regard to the investigation that took place within that period of six months. Here in this case, when the charge-sheet is filed even though beyond the period of six months, the same is taken on file in good faith and the trial of the case is on the way. We see, from Section 460(e), Cr.P.C. :

"460. Irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings. - If any magistrate not empowered by law to do any of the following things, namely,

(a) to (d) .................

(e) to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 190 :

erroneously in good faith does that things, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not beings so empowered.''

Therefore, the proceedings taken on file though erroneously, but in good faith, it cannot be said that the proceedings are vitiated. In this view of the matter, the lower Court, in my opinion, has committed the mistake of quashing the whole proceedings instead of simply ignoring the investigation made beyond the time of six months.

In this view of the matter, the revision case is allowed setting aside the orders Court is by the lower Court. The lower Court is directed to take the case again on its file and continue the proceedings keeping in mind the abovementioned observation.

Revision allowed.