Duty of Magistrate to direct to police to stop further investigation in summons case

 Under the statutory provision, viz., Section 167(5), there are statutory duties, one cast on the Court and the other on the investigating officer. For the invocation of this sub-section, the following conditions should be satisfied:

(1) The case to which this provision is to be applied, should be one triable by the Magistrate as a summons case;

(2) the accused in that case should have been arrested; and

(3) the investigation should not have been concluded within a period of six months from the date of the arrest of the accused.

If these three conditions are satisfied, the Magistrate before whom the case is pending, is statutorily obliged to make an order stopping further investigation into the offence, unless the officer making the investigation by application satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary.

Therefore, there is a statutory duty laid on the investigating officer to satisfy the Magistrate that for special reasons (not general reasons) and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary. The question is whether these duties cast on the Court and the police officer are not independent of each other. A careful examination of the section shows that the duty cast on the police officer is to be performed earlier in point of time to the duty of the Magistrate. This Could be explained by an illustration. Suppose that an accused has been arrested in a case triable as a summons case on 1-1-1982 and the investigation is continued. As per the section, the Magistrate can stop the proceedings of the investigation on the expiry of six months, viz., immediately after 1-7-1982. But, the officer making the investigation in order to get the permission for continuing the investigation, beyond the period of six months, should necessarily approach the Court and satisfy it, for special reasons and in the interests of justice, that the continuation of investigation is necessary. Therefore, it is the incumbent duty of the police officer to approach the Court even before the expiry of the six months' period, that is, on or before 30-6-1982, because once the period of six months expires, the Magistrate can stop further proceedings and in that case, the question of approaching the Magistrate seeking permission for continuation of the investigation does not arise. The only remedy open to the investigating officer, when the investigation is stopped by an order of the Magistrate on 1-7-1982 is to approach the Sessions Judge by resorting to Sub-section (6) Of Section 167 by filing a revision. Thus, it is clear that the officer making the investigation has necessarily to move the Court before which the case is pending for an order permitting continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months, before the Magistrate discharges his duty, which comes only after the expiry of six months. It follows that these two duties cast on these two functionaries are independent of each other.

Print Page