IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Anuja Prabhudessai, J.
Nayantara Gupta - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra— Respondent - Respondent
LD/VC/OCR/115/2020 Criminal Application No. ______/2020
Decided On : 10-08-2020
NDPS Act - Extension of Time - Section 36A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legality of the extension of time for completing the investigation under Section 36A of the NDPS Act. It highlighted the provisions of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 36A of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the requirement of a report from the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for detention beyond the prescribed period. The court concluded that the extension of time for investigation cannot be implied and must be based on due application of mind by the public prosecutor.
Fact of the Case:
The Applicant was arrested for offences under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity and sought statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court found that the application for extension of time was not granted or rejected on merits, and the subsequent application for bail was dismissed on the ground of implied extension of time by the previous judge, which was incorrect.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for extension of time did not meet the requirements of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 36A of the NDPS Act, as it lacked the progress of investigation and specific reasons for the extension. It concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. due to the failure to grant extension on valid grounds.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the extension of time for completing the investigation, the application of the order in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, and the sufficiency of the application for extension of time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the extension of time for investigation cannot be implied and must be based on a report from the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for detention beyond the prescribed period. It emphasized the need for due application of mind by the public prosecutor in submitting the report for extension.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The court also highlighted the need for accountability and corrective measures in the investigation process.
JUDGMENT
1. The Applicant has challenged the legality of the orders dated 11/5/2020 and 15/05/2020 passed by the learned N.D.P.S. Special Judge, Pune, in CNR No.MHPU01-005675 of 2020.
2. The Applicant is named as an accused in Cr. No. 14 of 2019 registered by (Narcotics Cell), Customs Pune. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12/11/2019 the Narcotic Cell at Pune received specific information that the Applicant herein was engaged in selling Mephedrone (MD) and LSD stamps from the Clover Highland, NIBM Road, (near Dorabjee Stores) Pune to potential customers in Pune area. On the same day i.e. 22.11.2019, the officers of Customs Narcotics Cell, Pune searched the aforesaid premises under Panchanma and recovered from the applicant transparent plastic pouch containing off white coloured powder like substance and a pouch containing some stamp like substances. The substance was tested using Field Testing Kit and the same tested positive for Mephadrone and LSD Lysergic Acid. The off white coloured substance purported to be Mephadrone weighing 54 gms, valued at Rs.3,24,000/- and 416 perforated stamps purported to be LSD Lysergic Acid valued at Rs.20,80,000/- was seized and FIR was registered against the Applicant for offences under for offences under sections 8 (c), 21 (b), 29 (1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 herein after referred as NDPS Act. The Applicant was arrested on 12/11/2019 and was produced before the remand Court on 13/11/2019. She has been remanded to judicial custody from time to time.
3. The period of 180 days, as prescribed under sub section (4) of Section 36A of NDPS Act for completing the investigation/ filing complaint was to expire on 11.05.2019. On 08/05/2020, before the expiry of 180 days of detention, the learned App submitted an application for extension of the period to complete the investigation and to file the complaint. Extension was sought mainly on the ground of inability to summon and record the statements of the persons alleged to have abetted the accused and for non availability of of Chemical Analyses Report and Call Detail Report due to disruption caused by Covid 19 situation. Reliance was also placed on order dated 23/3/2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (civil) No.3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation w.e.f.23/3/2020 until further orders, to obviate difficulties faced by the litigants due to Covid 19 situation.
4. The learned Spl. Judge considered the prayer for extension on 11.5.2020 and passed the following order:_
"Perused the Application. In suo moto WP (Civil) No(s). 3/2020 the Hon'ble Apex Court has extended period of limitation in all proceedings. Therefore, there is no need for passing extension order by this court, since the limitation stands extended by the order of the Hon'ble Apex court."
5. On 12.05.2020, the Applicant filed an Application for Bail No.1710/2020 under Section 167(2)Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36A of the NDPS Act. It was contended that the order of the Hon'be Apex Court in suo moto petition was not applicable in as much as it does not extend the period for filing the charge sheet. It was further contended that the Applicant has right to be heard on the question of extension of period of investigation.
6. The prosecution resisted the application mainly on the ground that the Applicant was arrested for offences involving commercial quantity of contraband substance. It was further contended that that in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the limitation period for filing the complaint stood extended and hence the application for default bail was not maintainable.
7. By the impugned order dated 15/05/2020, the learned Judge dismissed the application for bail. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:
"6. In suo moto, Writ Petition (Civil) No.(3)/2020), the Hon'ble Apex Court has extended the period of limitation. On 06/05/2020 the Inspector of Customs, Pune had made a
Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (2009) 17 SCC 631
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 602
State of Maharashtra v/s. Surendra Pundlik Gadling and ors. (2019) 5 SCC 178
Sanjay Kumar Kedia v/s. Narcotics Control Bureau (2009) 17 SCC 631
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.