ORDER
Patil, J.
1. A question of law common to all these cases arises for decision. Therefore they are heard together and proposed to be disposed of by common order.
2. AH the three cases arise from Ramdurg Police Station. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is one punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by reason of the contravention of Clauses of the Edible Oil Dealers Licencing Order 1977. In one case, it is said, the accused petitioner was carrying on business without licence. In the other cases, the accused-petitioners had not complied with the conditions of the licence. The alleged offence is said to have come to the notice on 5-8-1983. All the three accused, it is not disputed, were also arrested on the same day and were released on bail. Offences being triable as summons case by a Special Judge as provided under Section 12AA(1)(f) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, the investigation had to be completed and chargesheet had to be filed within six month from the date of the arrest i.e., by 4-2-1984. The charge sheet having not been filed, the petitioners bringing to the notice of the Special Judge, the provisions contained in Section 167(5) Cr.P.C., made an application to stop the investigation and not to take cognizance of the offence. However, for the reasons best known to the Special Judge, he did not make any orders, stopping the investigation. Since the petitioners also requested in the very application made by them to hear them before taking cognizance of the offence, on 27 3-1985, when the charge sheets in all the three cases were filed, the Special Judge proceeded to hear and by his order dated 10-7 1985, rejecting the contention raised by the petitioner, proceeded to take cognizance and directed to issue process, the correctness of which is sought to be challenged in these petitions.
3. The contention of the petitioners is the provisions of Section 167(5) Cr.P.C. having not been complied with, because of the inordinate delay in investigation and placing the charge-sheat, the proceedings instituted have to be quashed.
4. The Special Judge has proceeded to take cognizance of the cases following the decision of this Court in Kumar v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1985 KAR. 1450. on the ground that Section 167(5) Cr.P.C. is not a bar against the Court taking cognizance of the case. It may be mentioned here that with a view of avoiding delays during investigation and to achieve the object of expeditious investigation as also trial, some providers have been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, While as provided under Section 157 Cr.P.C., where an officer in-charge of a police station, has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 Cr.P.C. to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender, as provided under Section 173, every investigation shall be computed without unnecessary delay. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in H.N Rishbud and Anr. v. State of Delhi, : 1955CriLJ526 the formation of opinion as to whether, on the material placed, there is a case for trial before a Court and if so, taking necessary steps for the same, by filing charge-sheet under Section 173, is part of the investigation. Investigations have to be completed not only without unnecessary delay, but as provided under Section 167(1), if investigation is not completed within twenty-four hours, the accused shall be produced before the Court and he shall not be remanded for more than fifteen days at a time. Where the investigation is not completed within ninety days as provided under the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 irrespective of the nature of the offence, the accused shall be released on bail, if he is prepared to furnish security for his bail It is a part of the duty of the Court also to tell the accused that he is entitled to such a benefit of seeking release on bail. Where in the case of criminal offence triable as a summons case, the investigation is not completed within a period of six months from the date of arrest as provided under Sub-section (5) of Section 167, it is obligatory on the Magistrate (including the Special Court of Special Judge) to stop the further investigation into the offence unless the officer, making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate or the Special Judge the necessity of continuation of the investigation for special reasons and/or in the interest of the justice. In certain cases, there is also a bar against the Magistrate, taking cognizance of the offences if the report as rot made within the period of limitation as specified. A though the offences committed under the Essential Commodities Act are excluded from this bar of the Magistrate and the Court taking cognizance after the expiry of the particular period by virtue of the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974, nevertheless the principle is that delays have to be avoided both at the stage of investigation as also at the trial. It is with this object, the provisions have been made in Sub-section (5) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. empowering the Magistrate (or the Special Judge) to stop further investigation in such cases triable as the summons case; it is the part of the obligatory duty of the Magistrate to see that these provisions are complied with. Where the investigation is not concluded within six months from the date of the arrest of the accused, he must not only stop the further investigation, but also satisfy that there are any special reasons for continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months and it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Unfortunately the Special Judge here in spits of the fact that by making an application, his attention was drawn to these provisions, he did not think of either stopping the investigation or satisfying himself that there are special reasons for continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months in the interest of justice. The Supreme Court has taken very serious note about such lapses by the Courts below. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, : 1979CriLJ1045 the Supreme Court requested the High Court of Bihar look into the matter and satisfy whether the Magistrates in Bihar had been complying with the provisions of Section 167(5) Cr. P.C. The non-compliance, inspite of the provisions, brought to the notice, would make the provisions, dead letters. The learned Special Judge here appears to think that these provisions of stopping further investigation are no APPLICABLE to Special Judge. But he appears to have not read the provisions contained in Sections 12-AA (1)(f) & 12-AC. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been made applicable to such cases tried by the Special Judge. The application of the provisions of Section 167 has not been excluded. Although Sessions Judge is conferred with the special jurisdiction of trying such cases, nevertheless, the Special Judge is a Court of original criminal jurisdiction. Whatever may be the description, the Special Judge enjoys all the powers which a Court of original criminal jurisdiction enjoys unless specifically excluded. The learned Special Judge was there fore wholly in error in not stopping further proceedings. The High Court takes serious view of this.
5. Of course, the Special Judge having not stopped further investigation, when the charge sheet was filed, he could not refuse to take cognizance. But having taken cognizance before issuing process he could have as well thought of applying the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. and stopped the proceedings instead of issuing the process. Under the facts and circumstance , having regard to the inordinate delay in the investigation and the ordeal suffered by the petitioners which is more than the punishment, for the ends of justice, it seems necessary to quash the proceedings. The petitions are therefore allowed and the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners are quashtd.