Police reports under sections 435/436 RFC were presented before ths learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) Bhaderwah. Vide order impugned in this p3tition passed on 26784, the learned trial Judge has discharg5d the respondents and dismissed the police reports on the ground that both the challans were time barred. While taking this view, that the two challans were time barred, learned Judge has pressed into aid the proviso to section 173 or the Code or Criminal Procedure.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

Subsection (1) of section 173 Cr. P.C, which is relevant for our purpose and which contains the proviso relied upon by the trial Judge reads as under:

173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall b3 completed without unnecessary delay :

Provided that investigation into offences under Section 152, 153A, 295,295A 296,297, 298,435,436 and 505 of the State Ranbir Penal Code shall be completed within two weeks and if the investigation is not so completed the investigating officer shall report the causes of the delay to the District Superintendent of police who shall issue necessary instructions for completion of the investigation."

The only requirement of law mentioned in the proviso quoted above is that the investigation into the offences mentioned therein should ba completed within two weeks and if the investigation is not so completed, the Investigating Officer shall report the causes of delay to the District Suptd. of police who shall issue necessary instructions for early completion of the investigation, The prescribed period of two weeks has a direct relation to the opening part of subsection which lays down that every investigation under Chapter 14 shall be completed without any unnecessary delay. While therefore subsection (1) in general terns lays down that further investigation under Chapter14 shall be completed without any unnecessary delay. Proviso specifically deals with subsection and provides that in respect of offerees mentioned therein, investigation shall be completed in two weeks.

The question which arises for consideration is whether the consequence of noncompletion of the investigation in the prescribed period of two weeks, or for that matter the noncompletion of the investigation without even unnecessary delay can result in the offences becoming time barred and directing the accused to be discharged. For answering this question, one has to turn to section 538B of the Code which defines the limitation in respect of certain offences in subsection (2) thereafter. According to section 538B, no court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation as is prescribed in subsection (2) of section 538B. Three categories of offences have been included in subsection (2) and the period of limitation prescribed ranges from six months to three years. A plain reading of subsection (2) of section 538B leads one to clearly hold that the maximum period of limitation of three y ears is restricted to only those offences where the punishment, though exceeding one year does not exceed three years.

It therefore, clearly comes out that for such offences where the punishment prescribed is more than three years, no period of limitation has been prescribed under the Code.

The only provision of law for our purposes is dealing with the period of limitation being section 538B of the Code, taking recourse to section 173 Cr. P.C. for the purposes of holding the challans to be time barred and charging the accused on that ground was wholly improper by the learned trial Judge. He has committed a grave irregularity in taking that view of the matter, perhaps by ignoring of the legal provisions and for the reasons best known to him.

A question may be asked as to what is the import of prescribing the period of two weeks in the proviso to section 173 Cr. P.C. and what was intended by the Legislature in doing so. The answer has to be found to this question in section 497B of the Code where it has been stated that the accused persons charged with offence under sections 435/436 etc. shall be released on bail if the investigation has not been completed within a period of two weeks. Section 497B begins with very strict and rigorous requirement that no person accused of an offence mentioned therein shall be released on bail unless the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that be is not guilty of such offence, After laying down such rigorous and strict rule of law, regarding the bail application section itself, in the proviso relents and lays down that the bail shall be granted as a matter of right to accused involved in the same offences if the investigation has not been completed within two weeks. The consequence of noncompletion of investigation in two weeks, therefore, is only one and that is that the accused are entitled for the grant of bail as a matter of right. There is no other consequence for such noncompletion of the investigation in the prescribed period of two weeks.

For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this petition is allowed. The order impugned is setaside. Respondents who are present in the court today are directed to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Bhaderwah who shall pass appropriate orders after their surrender in his court .and proceed with the case on its merits in accordance with the law.

Record be sent back forthwith. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on December 28,1994.