JUDGMENT

Suhas C. Sen, J. - Special Leave granted.

2. Devinderpal Singh, the appellant herein, was deported from Germany and was arrested on his arrival at New Delhi on the charge of having travelled to Germany on a false passport. A case being FIR No. 22/93 under Sections 419/420/468/ 471, Indian Penal Code, and Section 12 of the Passport Act, was registered against him. He was subsequently ordered to be released on bail.

3. On the very same day i.e. 19th January, 1993, the appellant was also arrested in another case being FIR No. 316/93 registered under Sections 302/307/326/323/436/l20-B, Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

4. The appellant was remanded to judicial custody which was extended from time to time and the statutory period of 180 days expired on 17th July, 1995.

5. Before the expiry of the aforesaid statutory period of 180 days, an application was moved on 12th July, 1995 for extension of time for completion of the investigation and for that purpose a prayer was also made for extending the period of detention of the appellant beyond the period of 180 days. The Designated Court No. 11, Tis Hazari, Delhi, ordered:

"I have seen the entire file and progress of investigation. I have heard today the Ld. P.P. The evidence has to be collected from Jaipur, Baroda, Ahmedabad against the accused persons and that some of the offenders are yet to be arrested against whom some clues are received very recently. Keeping this in view, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where extension of time as per provisions of Sec. 20(4) (bb) TADA and Act 93, should be given. I accordingly allow extension of period for another sixty days at the expiry of first statutory period of 180 days with direction to positively complete the investigation by then."

6. The appellant was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 17th July, 1995 and the period of judicial remand was extended on the ground that the Designated Court had already extended the time for completion of the investigation for another 60 days. Consequently, the judicial remand of the appellant was extended for a further period of 60 days till 15th September, 1995.

7. The appellant, thereafter, on 17th July, 1995, moved an application for bail on the ground that the prosecution had failed to complete the investigation within the statutory period of 180 days and that no independent report had been submitted by the designated Public Prosecutor regarding the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for detaining the appellant beyond the statutory period of 180 days were not stated by the Public Prosecutor. The further contention of the appellant was that he was not produced before the Designated Court at the time of hearing of the application for extension on 12th July, 1995 and the order of extension was passed behind his back and without giving him any opportunity to show cause, why the prayer for extension should not be allowed.

8. Mr. Sodhi appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that by virtue of the proviso to sub-section (4)(bb) of Section 20, it is possible for the Designated Court to extend the statutory period of detention beyond the prescribed period of 180 days only if the conditions laid down in that sub-section are fulfilled. An essential requirement of sub-section (4)(bb) of Section 20 is that there will have to be a report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and also the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the aforesaid statutory period. In the instant case, the Public Prosecutor has not given any such report. The Designated Court, therefore, was in error in extending the period of detention without any report of the Public Prosecutor, as required by the statute. Mr. Sodhi further argued that in the judgment in the case of Hitender Vishnu Thakur