Senapathy Thevar vs State by Incepector of Police, Pudukottai

Singaravelu, J.—This application under S 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 443 of

1983 on the file of the Sessions Court, Pudukottai.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, acting u/s 167, Cl.5, Crl.P.C.stopped the investigation of a case registered u/s 304-A, I.P.C, by the

Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, on the ground that more than six months had elapsed since the arrest of the accused and as it was a summons

case. The investigation related to the collapse of a store room on 16th May, 1985 constructed within the Headquarters Hospital complex,

Pudukottai, which resulted in the death of one of the labourers engaged in the work and injuring two others. The case was registered against the

Petitioner herein, who is the Contractor entrusted with the construction work by the Public Works Department. In the course of investigation,

sample of the collapsed masonry construction was forwarded through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai to the Highways Research Section

for analysis. The report of the analysis was yet to be received. If the report disclosed sub-standard work, the supervisory staff of the P.W.D. on

the spot might also be involved. It is common ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not apprised by the Investigating Officer that the

investigation could not be completed on account of want of analysis report. In fact, the order stopping investigation appears to have been passed

without notice to him. Had the Investigating Officer been known the course to be adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he would have in a

position to put forward the grounds justifying the continuation of the investigation of the ase beyond the period of six months. In as much as this has

not been done, the only course open to the Investigating Officer was to move the Court of Session, u/s 167(6), Code of Criminal Procedure and

seek a review of the order stopping further investigation. This is what the Investigating Officer has done in this case.

Section 167(5), Crl.P.C permits the stopping of investigation in a case, which is triable as a summons case. In the instant case, the offence

mentioned in the F.I.R. is one u/s 304-A, I.P.C, which is triable as a summons case. There being no other materials before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate to show that either an offence u/s 304-A(2) I.P.C. was disclosed or that there are other accused. Who are suspected to have been

involved in the case, the order passed by him stopping investigation cannot be assailed. S. 167(6), Code of Criminal Procedure enables this order

to be revoked by the Sessions Judge if sufficient grounds are shown for continuing the investigation beyond the period of six months and this is

precisely what the learned Sessions Judge has done. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The

result is, the petition is dismissed.