Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 1522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N. J. Jamadar, J.
Asif Abdul Memon - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application No.950 of 2021
Decided On : 09-06-2022
Azaz Khan, Advocate, Zehra Charania, Advocate, H.J.Dedhia, Advocate
The non-availability of the Chemical Analyser report does not justify an extension of the investigation period under the NDPS Act.
Headnote:
NDPS - Bail Application - Sections 20(C), 8(c), 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 - The court discussed the legality of extending the investigation period based on the non-availability of the Chemical Analyser report. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of the NDPS Act, emphasizing that the non-availability of the Ca report does not justify an extension of the investigation period. The court quashed the extension order and granted bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arraigned for offenses under Sections 20(C) read with 8(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The court analyzed the legality of extending the investigation period based on the non-availability of the Chemical Analyser report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-availability of the Ca report did not justify the extension of the investigation period. The extension order was quashed, and the applicant was granted bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of extending the investigation period based on the non-availability of the Chemical Analyser report and the entitlement of the applicant to default bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-availability of the Ca report does not constitute a justifiable ground to seek an extension of time to complete the investigation and detention of the accused. The court emphasized that the charge sheet could have been lawfully filed without annexing the report of the chemical analyser.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, quashed the extension order, and granted bail to the applicant.
JUDGMENT
N.J. Jamadar, J. - The applicant who is arraigned in C.R.No.115 of 2021 registered with New Panvel Police Station for the ofences punishable under Sections 20(C) read with 8(c) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 (the NDPS act), has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the Order dated 17th September, 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panvel-Raigad, granting two months extension to complete the investigation in the said crime.
2. On 25th March, 2021, pursuant to an information, a raid was conducted on Pune-Mumbai Highway in front of JNK Lifters Pvt. Ltd., wherein a Innova Car bearing Registration No.MH-04/CJ-9363, which was on its way to Mumbai from Pune, was intercepted. The applicant and the accused No.1 were found in the said car. During the course of the search, in the presence of the public witnesses, 10 gunny bags containing 200 kgs ganja were found. The contraband articles were seized. Samples were collected. The applicant and the accused No.1 were apprehended. Crime was registered at C.R.No.115 of 2021 with New Panvel Police Station for the ofences punishable under Sections 20(C) read with 8(c) and 29 of the NDPS act.
3. The applicant along with the co-accused were produced before the learned Magistrate on 26th March, 2021. They were initially remanded to police custody and later on to judicial custody. The period of 180 days, for which detention is permissible under Section 36-a of the NDPS act, was to expire on 21st September, 2021.
4. On 15th September, 2021, a report was fled by the learned Public Prosecutor, alibag-Raigad, seeking extension of 60 days to complete the investigation. It was, inter alia, averred that the samples of the contraband have been sent for analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and, despite reminders, the report of the analysis was awaited. The ofences had wide ramifcations and other persons, whose complicity was revealed during the course of the investigation, were yet to be arrested. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor sought extension of time by invoking the proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 36-a of the act.
5. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, was persuaded to grant two months extension to complete the investigation. The observations in paragraph 5 of the impugned order spell out the reasons which weighed with the learned Special Judge to exercise the power to extend the period of detention by invoking the proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 36-a of the act. Para No.5 is thus, extracted below :
'5. Now the application has been fle by the Ld. PP with submissions of the investigation ofcer in the background of circumstances prevailed in lockdown situation is not in a position to fle the analysis report of the contraband from the laboratory. On perusal of application, it appears that the investigation ofcer has forwarded the request letter as well as memorandum letter to the laboratory almost seven times however, due to pandemic circumstances and due to pendency of analysis of other matters, the concern laboratory has not issued C.a.Report so far. admittedly, the present circumstances, are not under the control of the investigation ofcer. No doubt the investigation ofcer has updated the court for his eforts for securing the C.a.Report in order to fle charge sheet so also it has been pointed out that some other accused persons are yet to be arrested as refected in the remand report. Under such circumstances, there are valid grounds for extending the period for fling chargesheet for further two months. Hence, order.
6. Mr. Khan, the learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the impugned order is legally unsustainable. a two-fold submission was canvassed by the learned Counsel. First, the report of the learned PP was not supported by the
