ORDER
1. Delay condoned. Special Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. These are a batch of Appeals preferred by the State of Karnataka aggrieved as it is against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka passed in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 1990 and other batch matters as also against other Judgments and Orders based thereon. The point raised herein is common.
3. The Special Court trying offences under the Essential Commodities Act against the respondents stopped proceedings in spelling out a ban under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because investigation in the crimes had gone beyond the period of six months from the date of the arrest of the accused. On the stoppage of proceedings, the matter was taken to the High Court by the State in Revision but the view of the Special Judge was confirmed. Hence these Appeals.
4. The view of the High Court cannot stand in the way of the prosecution because of a Judgment rendered by this Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. FALGUNI DUTTA AND ANR. , wherein it has been held that when investigation has been stopped on the expiry of six months or the extended period, if any, by the Magistrate in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code, the investigation comes to an end and therefore on the completion of the investigation Section 173(2) enjoins upon the officer in charge of the Police Station to forward a report in the prescribed Form. It was held that there was nothing in Sub-section (5) of Section 167 to suggest that if the investigation has not been completed within the period allowed by that sub-section, the officer in charge of the Police Station would be absolved from the responsibility of filing the police report under Section 173(2) of the Code on the stoppage of the investigation. Finally, it was held that the Special Court was competent to entertain the police report restricted to six months investigation and take cognizance on the basis thereof.
5. Here, instantly the orders of the Special Judge cannot sustain in view of Falguni Dutta’s case. The proceedings would have to be revived and regulated in accordance with Falguni Dutta’s case. The material collected upto six months from the date of arrest of the accused would be taken into account for the purpose of prosecution. It is of no consequence which way it ends up. Criminal cases which come within the ambit of Sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be permitted to die down in police stations but have to meet their fate in Criminal Courts one way or the other. Such like prosecutions cannot be swallowed by the walls of the policestation. Thus for the aforesaid sole reason, we allow these Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment and Orders of the High Court as well as that of the Special Judge directing the revival of prosecutions against the respondents and their disposal in accordance with law. It is so ordered.