Resma Bibi @ Reshma Bibi and Another Vs State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Resma Bibi @ Reshma Bibi and Another Vs State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners: the revisional application CRR 422 of 2023 is dismissed; the order of the learned CJM, Bankura dated 11th August, 2022 is left undisturbed; pending applications, if any, are disposed of; case diary to be returned to the learned Public Prosecutor.

Issue for consideration

Whether, where the materials were collected within the time framework of Section 167(5) CrPC but the order of sanction remained pending until after the statutory period, the petitioners were entitled to discharge and whether the order of the learned CJM, Bankura called for interference.

Court's answer

Under Section 167(5) CrPC, stoppage of investigation or further investigation is not automatic, and the provision does not contemplate that the learned Magistrate would discharge the accused automatically.

Ratio / Principle

It is the duty of the learned Magistrate to assess the materials collected by the Investigating Agency to determine whether an offence is made out for taking cognizance.

Key takeaways

For pendency of sanction, the petitioners are not entitled to a discharge where the materials were collected by the Investigating Officer; the Investigating Officer cannot be made responsible for the order of sanction, which is to be granted by a different authority.ratio¶16
Since the chargesheet was submitted only after obtaining sanction while the materials were collected within the time framework provided under Section 167(5) CrPC, no case of impediment is made out.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRR 422 of 2023) — Discharge under Section 167(5) CrPC — arising out of Gangajalghati P.S. Case No. 74/15 under Section 5/6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1808 (year as printed). Held: stoppage of investigation or further investigation under Section 167(5) CrPC is not automatic, nor does the provision contemplate automatic discharge by the Magistrate; the Magistrate must assess the materials collected to decide whether an offence is made out for cognizance. Search-and-seizure materials relied on by the prosecution were collected within the statutory time frame; only the order of sanction remained pending and was granted by the District Magistrate, Bankura on 22nd October, 2019, after which the chargesheet was filed on 31st October, 2019. Pendency of sanction does not entitle the accused to discharge, and the Investigating Officer cannot be made responsible for a sanction to be granted by a different authority. Consequently, no case of impediment was made out; the order of the learned CJM, Bankura dated 11th August, 2022 in G.R. Case No. 679 of 2015 did not call for interference. Revision dismissed; pending applications disposed of; case diary returned to the Public Prosecutor. (Single Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

03-05-2024

Subha Item no. 40 Ct no.34

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

CRR 422 of 2023

Resma Bibi @ Reshma Bibi and anr. -versusState of West Bengal

Mr. Sabyasachi Hazra …..for the petitioners.

Mr. Debasish Roy, ld. PP Mr. Arijit Ganguly Ms. Sreemoyi Roy …for the State.

Report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor be kept with the record.

I have considered the case diary as placed by the learned Public Prosecutor in connection with Gangajalghati P. S. Case No. 74/15 dt.19-05-2021 which is under Section 5/6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1808.

The petitioners preferred an application for discharge under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 12^th June, 2019 and thereafter the Investigating Agency submitted the chargesheet on 31^st October, 2019.

Having considered the purpose for which Section 167(5) CrPC and the interpretation made therein, the stoppage of investigation or further investigation is not automatic and the provision do not contemplate that the learned Magistrate would

2

discharge the accused automatically.

It is the duty of the learned Magistrate to assess the materials collected by the Investigating Agency to point out whether an offence is made out for taking cognizance of the same.

In the instant case, record reflects that the search and seizure and materials relied upon by the prosecution were collected within the time framework of the statute but what was left is an order of sanction to be to obtained.

The Investigating Officer complied the same within the time frame but the Authority being the District Magistrate, Bankura granted the same on 22^nd October, 2019. For pendency of sanction the petitioners will not be entitled to a discharge where the materials were collected by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer also cannot be made responsible for the order of sanction which is to be granted by a different Authority.

Having considered the same and the fact that the chargesheet was submitted only after obtaining the sanction while the materials were collected within the time framework as provided under the provisions Section 167(5) CrPC, I am of the view that no case of impediment is made out. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned CJM, Bankura on 11^th August, 2022 in G R. Case No 679 of 2015 do not call for any interference. Thus, the revisional application being CRR 422 of 2023 is dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of. Case diary be returned to the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

3

All concerned parties are to act in terms of a copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

[Tirthankar Ghosh, J]