Narasimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka

Narasimhaiah vs State of Karnataka

Disposition Petition rejected Court Karnataka Decided Jun 25, 1986

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/383140

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/383140
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Patil, J.
Decided On: Jun 25, 1986
Case Number: Crl. Petn. No. 596 of 1984
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition rejected

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (Central Act No. 2 of 1974) - Section 167(5) -- Provision directory -- Order stopping further investigation only after expiry of six months and that after hearing Investigating Officer--If Special reasons made out, permission to continue investigation beyond six months cannot be refused...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition rejected
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 167(5)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narasimhaiah

Advocate R. Gopalakrishnan, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Advocate S.S. Koti, Adv. HCGP

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 167(5)
Reported In: ILR1986KAR2620; 1986(2)KarLJ466

Excerpt

.....business of money lending used in section 2(2) of the act makes it clear that the said activity of money lending can be carried on in connection with or in addition to any other business. therefore, the act does not prohibit a person from engaging himself in money lending business in addition to any other activity of his. as the plaintiff was not possessing any valid licence as required under the act, section 11 of the act comes into operation and the said section provides that, after the expiry of six months from the date of coming into force of the act, no court shall pass decree in favour of a money lender in any suit to which the act applies unless the court is satisfied that at the time the loan or any part of it was advanced, the money lender held a valid licence. appeal preferred against the judgment of decree of the lower appellate court reversing the decree passed by the trial court was dismissed. - ' although apparently these provisions are mandatory, in that it is obligatory on the magistrate to make an order stopping father investigation into the offence, where the investigation in any case triable by a magistrate as a summons case is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused is arrested, but they are merely directory ;because they are clearly controlled by what has been further stated, unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary. if there are special reasons for continuation of investigation beyond six months and the magistrate has not made any order stopping further investigation, he can as well, on the special reasons being made out, permit continuation of the investigation beyond six months......futher investigation could be made as provided under sub-section (5) of section 167 cr.p.c., on the application made by the investigating officer, on 2-3-1984, the learned sessions judge having regard to the nature of the offence as also the facts and circumstances of the case, considered it proper to permit continuation of the investigation beyond six months in the interest of justice. accordingly, he having made the order permitting the investigating officer to continue the investigation beyond six months, the accused has approached the high court invoking inherent powers under section 482 cr. p.c.3. the main ground on which the correctness of the order made by the sessions judge is sought to be challenged is that the power of permitting the continuation of the investigation under section 157(5) has to be exercised before the expiry of the statutory period of six months and any application made beyond the period of six months, or order made permitting continuation of the investigation thereafter is without jurisdiction. the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 167 cr.p.c. read as follows :--'(5) if in any case triable by a magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six mouths is necessary.'although apparently these provisions are mandatory, in that it is obligatory on the magistrate to make an order stopping father investigation into the offence, where the investigation in any case triable by a magistrate as a summons case is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused is arrested, but they are merely directory ; because they are clearly controlled by what.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Patil, J.

1. This petition by the accused in C.C.No. 22/1984, arising out of Crime No. 323/83 of Ulsoor Police Station, on the fib of the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, is directed against the order dated 21-4-1984, whereby the Investigating Officer has been permitted to continue the investigation beyond six months.

2. On the complaint of one S. Viswanath, residing at No. 68, 'G' No. 10th Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore, the Police registered a case in Crime No. 323/83, for the offence under Section 420 IPC and submitted F.I.R. to the Sessions Judge. Thereafter, on 29-8-1983, the accused was arrested and sent to the Magistrate for remand, He was released on bail. The offence being one triable as a summons case, the investigation had to be completed within six months. The investigation having not been completed before an order stopping futher investigation could be made as provided under Sub-section (5) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., on the application made by the Investigating Officer, on 2-3-1984, the learned Sessions Judge having regard to the nature of the offence as also the facts and circumstances of the case, considered it proper to permit continuation of the investigation beyond six months in the interest of justice. Accordingly, he having made the order permitting the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation beyond six months, the accused has approached the High Court invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

3. The main ground on which the correctness of the order made by the Sessions Judge is sought to be challenged is that the power of permitting the continuation of the investigation under Section 157(5) has to be exercised before the expiry of the statutory period of six months and any application made beyond the period of six months, or order made permitting continuation of the investigation thereafter is without jurisdiction. The provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. read as follows :--

'(5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six mouths is necessary.'

Although apparently these provisions are mandatory, in that it is obligatory on the Magistrate to make an order stopping father investigation into the offence, where the investigation in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons case is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused is arrested, but they are merely directory ; because they are clearly controlled by what has been further stated, 'unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary.' It therefore follows, before stopping further investigation, the Investigating officer has to be heard and unless the Investigating Officer is heard, the Magistrate cannot make an order stopping the investigation. The question of stopping further investigation arises only after the expiry of six months after the arrest of the accused, and the order stopping of further investigation also cannot be made unless an opportunity of being heard is also given to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it may not be correct to say that the powers can be exercised only before the expiry of six months and not after the expiry of six months. Since the Magistrate gets the power to stop further investigation after the period of six months, before making an order, if the Investigating Officer appears and satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interest of justice continuation of the investigation beyond six months is necessary, then the Magistrate cannot also refuse to permit the Investigation beyond six months. These provisions have been enacted with an object to see that the investigation of the case triable by a Magistrate as summons case should be completed as early as possible, within a period of six months. If there are special reasons for continuation of investigation beyond six months and the Magistrate has not made any order stopping further investigation, he can as well, on the special reasons being made out, permit continuation of the investigation beyond six months. The learned Sessions Judge here, having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as also the special reasons given for continuation of the investigation beyond six months, has permitted continuation of the investigation beyond six months in the interest of justice. Therefore, there is no error or material illegality committed by the Sessions Judge in making the order. There is no merit in the petition and the petition is therefore rejected.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1986 Same Parties Narasimhaiah vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Patil, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 167(5)

Criminal