9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, School Road, Mangadu, Chennai and (iii) Residence of A. Rehman (aged 50 years), S/o Abdul Razaak, residing at Flat No.5, II Floor, Remo Apartments, Gandhi Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 and found that drugs falling under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") were being manufactured in the factory and the godown premises. With their Field Test Kit, they tested the seized product and it answered positive for Methamphetamine/Pseudo Ephedrine. The petitioners were arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Court on 16.06.2017 and were remanded to custody. Their remands were periodically extended by the Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Chennai (for short "the Special Court"). 2.2 By virtue of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, the remand can be extended for a maximum period of 180 days to facilitate the Investigating Agency to complete the investigation and file final report/complaint. In this case, the 180th day was 13.12.2017. In other words, on the failure of the DRI to complete the investigation on or before 13.12.2017 and file a complaint, the petitioners/accused would have been entitled to be released on statutory bail on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g any decision on that, the Court cannot pass orders releasing the petitioners/accused on default bail. Thereagainst, the petitioners filed Crl.R.C.No.16 of 2018 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 06.02.2018, set aside the order of the Special Court and remanded the petition for fresh consideration after giving notice to both parties and further directed the Special Court to pass appropriate orders on merits. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the Special Court reheard Crl.M.P. No.3271 of2017 and by order dated 28.03.2018, dismissed the petition for default bail, aggrieved by which, the petitioners have preferred Crl.R.C. No.660 of 2018. 2.9 The Special Judge took up hearing of Crl.M.P. No.3437 of 2017 filed by the Special Public Prosecutor qua extension of time for investigation and after hearing either side, passed final orders on 19.12.2017, extending the time for completion of investigation by one year commencing from 16.06.2017. 2.10 Assailing the correctness of the order dated 19.12.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3437 of 2017, the accused have preferred Crl.O.P. No.220 of 2018. 3 On the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, both the criminal origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Kerala High Court in T.A. Mohammed vs. State of Kerala [2011 (263) ELT 202 - Paragraph no.10 * Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2001 SC 1910] * Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam [2017 AIR (SC) 3948] - Paragraph nos.33,73 and 74 * Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and others [(2012) 12 SCC 1] - Paragraph nos.20 and 25 and * Achpal @ Ramswaroop and another vs. State of Rajasthan [2018 (4) KLT 664] 7 Per contra, Mr. N.P. Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases made the following submissions: * At the time of seizure, the officers of the DRI had tested the substance with their Field Test Kit and the substance answered positive for Methamphetamine/Pseudo Ephedrine; the result of the test is only for arriving at a reasonable belief that the seized contraband falls with the ambit of the NDPS Act; it is only the test by the Scientific Officer and his report which would have legal validity in a Court of law and not the result obtained through the Field Test Kit. * The last remand extension of the accused was done on 05.12.2017 and the remand was extended upto 18.12.2017 by the Special Judge; it is true that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: "50(2)(a) The requirement of such notice to the accused before granting the extension for completing the investigation is not a written notice to the accused giving reasons therein. Production of the accused at that time in the Court informing him that the question of extension of the period for completing the investigation is being considered, is alone sufficient for the purpose." In this case, when the accused refused to receive the notice in prison on the petition filed by the Investigating Officer, the Special Judge had the accused brought before him on 13.12.2017 by issuing P.T. warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of serving notice on them. In the meantime, on 11.12.2017, the Special Public Prosecutor had also filed his detailed report under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. The petitioners/accused were furnished with all the petition and report and were given a full hearing by the Special Judge, which, actually, was not required in view of Sanjay Dutt (supra). On 13.12.2017, the petitioners/accused filed the default bail application and insisted that the Court should hear the said petition first and only thereafter, hear the time extension report of the Spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Public Prosecutor whether to grant or refuse to grant extension of time. After the categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Rambeer Shokeen (supra), any further discussion on this subject is only academic. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under: "26. It is thus clear that no right had accrued to the appellant before filing of the charge-sheet; at best, it was an inchoate right until 8-3-2017. Resultantly, the question of granting statutory bail after filing of charge-sheet against the appellant and more so during the pendency of report/application for extension of time to file charge-sheet was impermissible. In other words, the application for grant of statutory bail filed by the appellant on 2-3-2017, even if pending, could have been taken forward only if the prayer for extension of period was to be formally and expressly rejected by the Court. (emphasis supplied) 27. As held by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the consideration of application for grant of statutory bail in a situation, as in the present case, was dependent on rejection of prayer of the Additional Public Prosecutor for extension of time. When such prayer is made, it is the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mahazar witnesses, conduct search of the residential premises of the petitioners/accused and record the corroborative statements of certain witnesses: "It is respectfully submitted that the complainant/petitioner has conducted investigation involving various aspects of the case such as examining the mahazar witnesses, search of the residential premises of the accused involved, corroborative statement from other persons, etc. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant/petitioner is yet to receive crucial documents pertaining to the investigation in the above case which require detailed analysis of the said documents requiring further investigation and that follow up searches are required to be conducted. The complainant filed petition for extension of 180 days for investigation and to file the complaint and that may be read as part and parcel of this report. It is submitted that the investigation is in progress to find out the other persons who are involved in this offence and the test report has to be obtained and the samples has to be taken from the factory and to send the same to State Forensic Science Department, Chennai for testing. Hence further period is require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contents from the petition filed by the Investigating Officer and has held that it does not indicate even remotely, any application of mind on the part of the Public Prosecutor. In this case, after the Investigating Officer filed a petition on 06.12.2017, in which the Special Public Prosecutor has signed, a separate Report has been filed by the Special Public Prosecutor on 11.12.2017, wherein, the necessary facts for grant of extension of time have been pleaded. 19 In Uday Mohanlal Acharya (supra), the issue was whether the default bail application filed by the accused can be kept in abeyance so as to give an opportunity to the Investigating Agency to file the charge sheet/complaint and thereby, frustrate the plea for default bail. In this case, the accused/petitioners would have been entitled to default bail only on 14.12.2017, in the event of the Special Public Prosecutor not filing the Report under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act or for non-filing of the complaint. In this case, the Special Public Prosecutor has filed the Report on 11.12.2017 well ahead of 14.12.2017. 20 In Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi (supra), the accused therein was entitled to be released on default bail on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
