SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
Wasim Akram @ Raja Khan, s/o Abdul Kadir Khan - Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through PSO Darwha, Police Station Darwha, District Yavatmal – Respondent
Criminal Application (BA) No.285 of 2024 With Criminal Application (BA) No.1141 of 2023 With Criminal Application (BA) No.1179 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Shri S.H. Sudame, Shri S.P. Bhandarkar.
For the Respondent: Ms. H.N. Prabhu, Add. Public Prosecutor, Shri M.J. Khan, Addi. Public Prosecutor.

A police report under Section 173(2) is not incomplete solely for lacking an FSL report if filed within the stipulated time, thus default bail cannot be claimed.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(b), 8(c), 21(c), 29; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 167(2), 36-A(4) - Bail application - Applicants arrested for offenses under NDPS Act seeking bail on basis of incomplete chargesheet filed without FSL report - Prosecution did not apply for extension beyond 180 days - Previous decisions invoked emphasizing that a chargesheet filed within time, although unaccompanied by FSL, is not incomplete - Court held that CA/FSL report is only directory and absence does not void chargesheet. (Paras 5, 33-35)

Facts of the case:
Applicants arrested on 18.5.2023 for transporting contraband, chargesheet filed on 14.8.2023; FSL report subsequently filed failing to meet the 180-day timeframe.

Findings of Court:
Chargesheet deemed valid despite absence of FSL report as it contained requisite details under Section 173(2) of the Code.

Issues: Whether the chargesheet was incomplete; and the grounds for bail based on accusations of failure to comply with statutory mandates.

Ratio Decidendi: Court clarified that filing of chargesheet with details prescribed in Section 173(2) within the period stipulated under Section 167(2) does not necessitate an FSL report for completion, affirming jurisdiction to take cognizance remains unaffected.

Result: Bail applications rejected.

Table of Content
1. bail applications under ndps act. (Para 1 , 3)
2. allegations of incomplete chargesheet. (Para 4 , 5)
3. prosecution's requirement for fsl report compliance. (Para 6 , 7 , 13)
4. arguments on the validity of chargesheet. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. statutory interpretation regarding ndps act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. court's exploration of case law and statutory interpretation. (Para 19)
7. incomplete chargesheet implications. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. decision on merits of bail applications. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
9. rejection of bail applications based on procedural compliance. (Para 38 , 39 , 49)

ORDER :

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.

1. By these applications, being moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicants arrested on 18.5.2023 seek regular bail in connection with Crime No.401/2023 registered with the non-applicant police station for offences punishable under Sections 8 (b), 8(c), 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act).

2. Heard learned counsel Shri S.P.Bhandarkar for applicants (in Criminal Application Nos.1141 and 1179/2023) and learned counsel Shri S.H.Sudame for applicant (in Criminal Application No.285/2024) and learned Additional Public Prosecutors Shri M.J.Khan and Ms.H.N.Prabhu for the State.

3. The accusations against applicants are on the basis of report lodged by Assistant Police Inspector Amol Krushnaji Mude, attached to the Darwha Police Station. As per his report, he received a secret information that contraband article “Mephedrone” is being transported in a white colour “Hyundai Verna Car” bearing registration No.MH-49/B/7082 and the said car is proceeding through “Samruddhi Mahamarg”. He immediately forwarded the said information to his superior i.e. Assistant Superintendent of Police and also Police Inspector, Darwha Police Station. He also called two panchas from the Panchayat Samiti Office at Darwha and also called a jeweller to weigh the contraband article. By carrying the sealing material, police officials proceeded towards spot of incident and intercepted the said car. In the said car, applicants were found. After giving their search and informing rights of applicants, under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, personal search of applicants was carried out. During the search of the said car, a box below dash board was found containing a brown colour envelope, which was opened in presence of panchas, in which “Mephedrone” powder weighing 150 grams was found. The net weight of the said mephedrone powder was 141 grams 600 miligrams. In presence of panchas, samples were obtained. Cash amount was also seized from applicants. It is also mentioned that they have kept provision for obtaining the samples in presence of the Magistrate in view of compliance under Section 52 of the NDPS Act. After a due compliance of the mandatory provision, they arrested applicants.

4. Learned counsel Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, submitted that the mandate of Section 36 -A(4) of the NDPS Act is not followed by the prosecution. Incomplete chargesheet is filed without FSL and Inventory Reports. Only the investigating agency filed applications under Section 36 -A(4) for extension of time. In fact, it is to be filed through the Public Prosecutor. Thus, the prosecution has not followed due mandate and no extension was sought after expiry of 180 days for placing on record the FSL Report. The FSL Report was filed on 15.2.2024. The applications filed by the Investigating Officer neither indicate progress of investigation nor indicate compelling reasons required for extension of custody beyond 180 days. The said applications show that the FSL Report is being filed under the garb of Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The act done by the Investigating Officer frustrates procedural schemes laid down under the NDPS Act. He further submitted that a plain reading of proviso to Section 36 -A(4) indicates that the special court is required to consider applications filed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top