State of Haryana vs Rajinder Singh

N.K. Kapoor, J.—The order discharging the accused in respect of the alleged offence u/s 3 of the. Haryana Foodgrains Dealers Licencing and Price Control Order, 1978, on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is subject-matter of consideration in this appeal.

Briefly put, the challan was put up by the S.H.O. Police Station Nangal Chowdhri, to the effect that the accused had 23 quintals 50 Kilograms of rice for sale and had been taking the same from Haryana to Rajasthan in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Haryana Foodgrains Dealers Licencing and Price Control Order, 1978. The accused was arrested on January 21, 1984. The investigation in this case continued beyond the period of six months and challan was put in the Court on July 27, 1981 without obtaining special permission of the Court as required u/s 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

An objection was taken by the counsel for the accused to the effect, that the challan having been put in the Court after the expiry of the period of six months, the same could not be taken cognizance by the Court in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The counsel placed reliance on judicial pronouncements reported as Raj Singh v. The State Delhi Administration 1984 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 274 and Ram Briksh Jadab Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, , This objection of the aroused was accepted by the trial Court; thereby discharging the, accused.

Now, before us also almost identical plea has been raised by the counsel appearing for the State, namely, that the case is not triable as a summons case and, thus, the provisions of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not attracted to the facts of the present case. This argument is wholly without any merit. Section 12AA(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, clearly lays down that all offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed. Section 12AA(1)(f) further provides that all offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way.

In this view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to seek special permission of the Court for extension of time for investigation as envisaged u/s 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly, no application was filed by the Investigating Officer making out a case for extension of time for investigation beyond the period of six months. Thus, finding no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dated October 15, 1984, we dismiss the appeal being without any merit.