IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.330 of 2006 1. RAJENDRA SINGH 2. RAJDEO SINGH 3. HARDEO SINGH 4. MEGH NATH SINGH 5. SHESH NATH SINGH ALL SONS OF LATE DHANKU SINGH 6. RAMESH MAHTO & RAMESH KUMAR SON OF RAJENDRA MAHTO & RAJENDRA SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SUJANPUR, P.S. – INDRAPURI, DISTRICT – ROHTAS ............... PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RASOOL MIAN, SON OF LATE MAHANGU, R/V. UJANPUR P.S. – INDRAPUR, DISTRICT – ROHTAS ................. OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 5 27.03.2009 No one had appeared on 26.03.2009. The matter was passed over for the day. Today the counsel for the petitioner is present. However, the counsel for the respondent is not present. The instant revision has been filed against the judgment dated 21.2.2006 in Cr. Appeal No. 24/10 of 2005/2005, whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram rejected the application of petitioner for setting aside the order dated 7.2.2005 passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dehri, whereby he extended the period of proceedings by further two months on 7.2.2005. Learned counsel submits that the proceeding was initiated on 24.07.2004 and petitioner appeared on 5.08.2004 pursuant to the aforesaid order. The proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P. C lapsed in six months as per Section 116 Cr.P.C. unless and until it is extended before the life of the proceeding. - 2 - “116(6) ------ The enquiry under this Section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs: Provided that where any person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding against that person, unless terminated earlier, shall stand terminated on the expiry of a period of six months of such detention. In the instant case the proceeding was extended after lapse of six months from the date of initiation and/or even from the date of appearance of the petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings. Further more, the impugned order also suffers from the vice that no reason has been granted for extending the proceeding which is mandatory under the law under Sub- section 6 and Section 116 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in law in overlooking aforesaid aspect and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. In the result, this revision application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the appellate court as well as learned Executive Magistrate - 3 - are set aside and the subsequent order passed in the proceedings is also set aside. Kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)