1993 (5) TMI 181 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Section 167(5) applicability for Special Court trials

State Of West Bengal Versus Falguni Dutta And Another

State Of West Bengal Versus Falguni Dutta And Another - 1993 (3) SCR 570, 1993 (3) SCC 288, 1993 (3) JT 288, 1993 (2) SCALE 743 Issues Involved:1. Whether a Special Court constituted under Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is empowered to exercise powers under sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Whether a Special Court can take cognizance of the offence and proceed to try and punish the accused person if the charge-sheet is filed after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of arrest or the extended period.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Special Court's Power Under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal ProcedureThe court examined whether the Special Court under Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, can exercise powers under sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant legal provisions were analyzed, including Sections 12A, 12AA, and 12AC of the Act, and Section 167 of the Code. The court noted that Section 12AA(1)(c) of the Act empowers the Special Court to exercise the same powers as a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Code. The court concluded that the Special Court is expressly empowered to exercise the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code. Consequently, the High Court was correct in concluding that Section 167(5) of the Code was applicable in the present case, allowing the Special Court to stop further investigation if it is not concluded within six months from the date of arrest unless special reasons justify its continuation.Issue 2: Cognizance of Offence by Special Court After Expiry of Six MonthsThe court also addressed whether the Special Court could take cognizance of the offence and proceed to try and punish the accused if the charge-sheet is filed after the expiry of six months from the date of arrest or the extended period. The court referred to the definition of 'police report' under Section 2(r) of the Code and the procedure outlined in Section 173(2) of the Code. It was observed that the police report must be submitted as soon as the investigation is completed. If the investigation is stopped under Section 167(5) of the Code, the officer-in-charge of the police station is still required to file the police report based on the investigation conducted within the allowed period. The court concurred with the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the investigation done within the period of six months is not invalidated merely because it is not completed, and the Special Court can take cognizance based on the police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code.Conclusion:The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the High Court's view that Section 167(5) of the Code is applicable to offences under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act triable by the Special Court. However, it set aside the part of the High Court's order that quashed the Special Court's cognizance of the offence based on the police report. The Special Court was deemed competent to entertain the police report restricted to the six-month investigation and take cognizance thereof. The Special Court was directed to proceed with the trial from that stage onwards and complete it as early as possible in accordance with the law. The appeal was thus partly allowed.