9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code' for short), the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th December, 2010 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa ('the Special Court' for short) granting applications dated 7th September, 2010 and 3rd November, 2010 for extension of time for filing the chargesheet under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and rejecting bail application filed by the petitioner. 3. On 13th January, 2010, the petitioner was arrested on the allegation that he was found in possession of 34 grams of ecstasy ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bail application was opposed by the respondent. After giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Special Court by order dated 29th December, 2010 maintained the orders dated 7th September, 2010 and 3rd November, 2010 and dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Mr. D'Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that the learned Public Prosecutor did not apply his mind while seeking extension of time to file chargesheet and, therefore, the said orders granting extensions to file chargesheet are unsustainable in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Investigating Officer in his report lodged i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of drugs and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 8. Before the Special Court, on behalf of the petitioner/accused, it was submitted that since chargesheet was filed without C.A. report earlier extensions granted were patently illegal. The petitioner also relied upon the judgment in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra; 2001(1)BCR 577 in support of his submission that if chargesheet is not filed within the period stipulated under Section 167(2) of the Code, the accused is en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s second submission also. In so far as the judgment in the case of Sanjay Kediya (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, in the said case, the Apex Court held that the applications filed seeking extension of time were not in terms of Section 36(A)(4) of the Code since the first application was filed by the investigating officer and second application did not disclose that Public Prosecutor had applied his mind before seeking extension. In the present case, no material has been placed before me in support of the contention that the Public Prosecutor did not apply his mind while seeking extensions for filing the chargesheet. Therefore, the case of Sanjay Kediya does not advance the case of the petitioner. In so far as the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
