9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtension of time for presenting the challan in the present case, only on the ground of non-reciept of the FSL report, without giving any reasons, as to why non-receipt of such report was sufficient cause for delay in the completion of investigation, would amount to non-application of mind, as is essential for seeking such extension of time by the public prosecutor, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau another [ 2009 (8) TMI 1290 - SUPREME COURT ] and Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2001 (3) TMI 1032 - SUPREME COURT ]. Though, it would be immaterial in the context of an application moved under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., however, it is necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2013 on the ground that the police had moved an application seeking further time to complete the investigation and present the challan though time was allowed vide the same order dated 31.10.2013. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the application moved by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sangrur, on 23.10.2013, seeking extension of time to submit the challan, with the petition presently filed. 5. This application was filed on the ground that despite efforts made by the investigating agency the report of the Director Forensic Science Laboratory had not been received, thereby making it difficult to present the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within time. 6. Mr. Rajbir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n all fours, to the present case. 8. Mr. Rajbir Singh argued his case relying more upon the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau another (supra), wherein, after discussing the law on the issue, their Lordships held that the application moved by the Public Prosecutor was without any application of mind. That application (reproduced in extenso in para No.13 of the said judgment), was also primarily filed on the ground that the report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory had not been received. This reason was held to be not sufficient and consequently, the application was held to have been made without any application of mind on the part of the Public Prosecutor. 9. Mr. Kirat S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason for seeking extension of time was non-receipt of the report of the FSL. 10. In the present case also, the sole reason given in the application of the public prosecutor (Annexure P-3 with the petition), is that: That I am satisfied that the investigating officer of this case made every effort to receive the report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mohali. But the same was beyond his control, so the extension of above noted period for presenting the challan is very much necessary and the same may be extended in the interest of justice. Otherwise prosecution will suffer irreparable loss. It is therefore requested that the application may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice. 11. Keeping in view the contents of the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
