9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons 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 tablets, 26 grams of MDMA, 17 grams of cocain and 6 ml LSD and offence vide Crime No.2/2010 under Section 21(b) and 22(c) of the Act was registered in the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji. Since the period of 180 days in filing chargesheet was expiring on 11th July, 2010, the respondent sought extension for a period of 60 days which was granted. The said period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. 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 in remand applications had clearly stated that tests were carried out with kit box which was available with the investigating agency which prima facie disclosed that the substances found with the accused were narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and, therefore, the fact that C.A. report was not available, was not a ground for seeking extension of time. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner/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 entitled for bail in default. 9. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the petitioner had not urged before the Special Court that the extensions granted by the Special Court were vitiated on the ground that testing of substances found was done on the spot with the help of kit box and, therefore, it was not necessary to await for the C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rafael Palafox Garcia (supra) is concerned, the same also does not advance the case of the petitioner in as much as in the said case the accused was found in possession of controlled substance and the learned Judge held that rigors of Section 37 of the Act would not be attracted and as such, bail could be granted. Therefore, such judgment a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
