Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1220
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9215 of 2013)
Decided On : 04-10-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Mr. Mansoor Ali, Mr. A. Venayagam Balan
For the Respondent: Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
The court emphasized that the grounds for extension of time under MCOCA must warrant a further extension and that the appellant was entitled to consideration of his bail application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
MCOCA - Extension of Investigation Period - Section 21(2)(b) of MCOCA - Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C - Summary of Acts and Sections: MCOCA - Section 21(2)(b), Cr.P.C - Section 167(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The prosecution sought an extension of time for investigation under Section 21(2)(b) of MCOCA, which was rejected by the Special Judge. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Special Judge's order. The appellant challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's order did not adequately consider the grounds for extension of time, and the Special Judge's rejection of the application was proper. The appellant was entitled to consideration of his bail application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
Issues: Validity of extension of investigation period under MCOCA, maintainability of the revision petition, entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the grounds for extension of time did not warrant a further 90-day extension under Section 21(2)(b) of MCOCA. The High Court's order was set aside, and the appellant was directed to have his bail application considered on its own merits.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The Special Judge was directed to consider the appellant's bail application on its own merits.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. In FIR No. I-131 of 12 registered at the Police Station Nizampur, District Thane, Mumbai, the appellant was arrested on 04.08.2012. He was produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and was remanded to judicial custody till 10.08.2012. Thereafter, the respondent took order of prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) to apply the provisions of Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOCA.
3. As per the provisions of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) maximum period during which the investigation has to be completed is 90 days. Sub-section (2) of Section 167 provides that if the investigation is not completed within the said period of 90 days and charge-sheet filed, the accused is, as a matter of right, entitled to bail.
4. Since in the instant case the provisions of MCOCA were also invoked, Section 21 thereof got attracted. It modifies, to a certain extent, the provisions of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. Insofar as the provision relating to completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet within a period of 90 days is concerned, that can be extended by further 90 days under certain conditions as mentioned in the proviso which is added vide clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of MCOCA. For better understanding, this provision is reproduced below:-
“21. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law, every offence punishable under this Act, shall be deemed to be a cognisable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code and “cognisable case” as defined in that clause shall be constructed accordingly.
(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modifications that, in sub-section (2),
(a) the references to “fifteen days”, and “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days” and “ninety days”, respectively;
(b) after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: -
“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Special Court shall extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days, on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days.”
5. In the instant case, limit of 90 days was expiring on 01.11.2012. As investigating officer was not in a position to complete the investigation by that time, few days before the said date of expiry, i.e. on 22.10.2012, prosecution moved an application invoking the provisions of Section 21 of MCOCA and seeking extension of time by another 90 days for completion of the investigation. The Special Judge, MCOCA, considered the said application and dismissed the same vide his orders dated 30.10.2012 holding that the prosecution could not satisfy the conditions contained in the aforesaid proviso to enable it to get the said extension. A perusal of the order of the Special Judge would reveal that according to him, unsatisfactory progress was made by the public prosecutor in the investigation of the case and no satisfactory reasons were given for detention of the appellant herein beyond the period of 90 days. Once this application was rejected by the Special Judge and period of 90 days expired on 01.11.2012, the appellant filed an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on 02.11.2012 submitting that he had become entitled for bail as the 90 days' period had expired and the said period of investigation was not extended by the competent Court. However, before this application could be considered and order passed thereupon, the respondent herein filed a revision application in the High Court of Bombay challenging the aforesaid order of the Special
