JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Heard Shri V.S. Bedre, counsel for the applicant and Shri V. B. Ghatage, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Applicant, who is accused in Crime No. 31 of 1995 registered by Rahuri Police Station for allegedly having committed offence punishable under sections 20 21, 22, 25 and 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 prays for bail by virtue of the provisions of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that applicant was found in possession of Ganja and he was arrested on 11-2-1995. Therefore, the charge sheet should have been submitted within 90 days thereafter.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14-3-95, Police Constable Prakash Rukhmaji Padale-Bakkle No. 776 of Rahuri Police Station had been to Special Judges Court. But the said charge sheet was not accepted by the concerned Clerk and Nazir and, therefore, a report came to be submitted to the Police Inspector at Rahuri by the said Police Constable and a copy of the report has also been submitted along with the affidavit of the Assistant Police Inspector Thorat. The report alleged that the clerk of the Special Court at Ahmednagar refused to accept the charge sheet on the ground that photographs of seized articles have not been supplied and unless those photographs are taken, the charge sheet cannot be accepted.

5. Section 52-A prescribes the procedure for the disposal of the seized articles of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance which speaks about the taking of the photographs in presence of the Magistrate of certain articles under sub-section (2)(b). It is the allegation of the investigating agency that the charge sheet was not accepted by the clerk of the Special Court on the ground that the photographs of the seized articles are still to be drawn. It is not only surprising but agonizing. When the Criminal Procedure Code has given a specific absolute right to the accused detained, that he shall be released on bail, if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated time, the filing of the charge sheet within that time becomes the duty of all responsible police officers. It is also surprising that the clerk gave such explanation for not accepting charge sheet and the police officers also does not take immediate action to approach to the Judge himself and requests the acceptance of the charge sheet.

6. It appears that the prosecution agency slept over the matter from 14-3-95 to 17-5-1995. Admittedly, 90 days period was over on 12-5-1995 and nothing was done to correct the mistake which was allegedly caused by clerk of the Court in not accepting the charge sheet. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by its sub-section (2) gives the requirement of a valid charge sheet. If those requirements are there, the charge sheet is complete. Though sub-section (5) of section 173 requires that the documents or relevant extracts thereof which the prosecution proposes to rely other than already sent to the Magistrate during the investigation and the statement under section 167 should also be submitted alongwith the report. They do not form part of the charge sheet. If any of such statement is not accompanying, it can never be said that the charge sheet was not complete. To refuse to accept the charge sheet for any untenable reason would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court which is duty bound to accept the charge sheet. It is surprising as to why the clerk of the Court thought that the photographs are necessary. Even assuming that the photographs were necessary, they were to be taken in presence of the Magistrate and, therefore, that can never be the ground to refuse to accept the charge sheet. A copy of the application submitted by the Public Prosecutor to the Special Court i.e. IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar is also made available by the learned Counsel for the applicant. This application does not make a mention of the fact that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document