ORDER

1. These appeals arise out of the following facts: the appellant was arrested on 12-2-2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 24, 29, 30 and 38 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called "the Act") and was produced before the Special Judge who remanded him to judicial custody for fifteen days, the period being extended from time to time.

2. The appellant also moved an application for bail before the Special Judge. This application was rejected on 28-5-2007 where after the appellant moved the Calcutta High Court. This application was rejected on 7-6-2007. The appellant, aggrieved by the order of 7-6-2007, preferred a special leave petition in this Court on 10-7-2007 which too was dismissed on 3-12-2007.

3. It appears that as the period of 180 days fixed under Section 36-A(4) of the Act read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called "the Code") was to expire on 10-8-2007, Respondent 1, the Narcotics Control Bureau, filed an application under Section 36-A(4) on 2-8-2007 seeking a further period of six months for the completion of the investigation and the filing of the complaint. The Special Judge allowed this application by order dated 2-8-2007. As the extended period would have expired on 2-2-2008, the Bureau, moved yet another application under Section 36-A(4) of the Act which too was allowed on 30-1-2008 and the time for the completion of the investigation was extended to 13-2-2008, which would have (statedly) brought the total custody to 1 year and 2 days.

4. The appellant moved another application for bail under Section 36-A(4) of the Act read with Section 167(2) of the Code on 4-2-2008 on the plea that the investigation had not been completed within the stipulated period of time fixed by the Special Judge. This application was rejected on 13-2-2008.

5. The appellant also moved CRR No. 411 of 2008 in the Calcutta High Court on 7-2-2008 against the order dated 30-1-2008 whereby an extension of six months had been granted. The complaint was also filed by Respondent 1 on 7-2-2008. The appellant filed CRR No. 765 of 2008 before the Calcutta High Court challenging the order dated 13-2-2008 rejecting the application for bail. On 6-8-2008, a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court released both the CRRs aforementioned for want of jurisdiction as they were required to be heard by a Division Bench. Both the matters came up before the Division Bench and were dismissed by an order dated 5-9-2008. The present appeal has been filed impugning this order.

6. Leave was granted in this matter on 5-12-2008 and though, both the respondents i.e. the Narcotics Control Bureau and the State of West Bengal have been served, the former has not put in appearance despite the passage of almost a year. The State of West Bengal, Respondent 2 however, which is not really the contesting party, has filed a counter and is also represented by its counsel, Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee. He, at the very outset, pointed out that he felt gravely handicapped on account of the non-appearance of Respondent 1, the primary party-respondent, but he has chosen to go ahead as it appears that the first respondent was not interested in contesting the case. The broad facts given above have not been controverted by the respondents.

7. Mr. Lalit, the learned counsel for the appellant has made two submissions before us:

(i) the two applications for extension dated 10-7-2007 and 30-1-2008 did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 36-A(4) of the Act and' were without notice to the accused and as such the orders were a nullity 1 and any extension of time beyond 180 days