KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. Natarajan, J.
Gangya @ Gangadhar and Ors. —Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.100329 of 2020 c/w Criminal Appeal No.100327 of 2020
Decided on 22.1.2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 167(2)—Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000—Section 22—Default bail—Extension of time for filing charge-sheet—Alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment for death or imprisonment for life—Investigation officer is required to file final report within 90 days as per Section 167 of Cr.P.C.—As per Section 22 (b) of KCOCA Act, which extends another 90 days on report filed by Public Prosecutor—Notice is required to be given to accused only after accruing any right of getting default bail after expiry of 90 days from date of their arrest—Once time is extended by trial Court and charge-sheet is filed within 180 days, as per Section 22 (b) of KCOCA Act, question of granting default bail to accused u/s. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. does not arise—Appellants/accused have failed to make out a case that there was an error or omission committed by trial Court while passing order without issuing notice to accused and order cannot be set aside in view of Section 465 of Cr.P.C., wherein on technical grounds Appellate Court cannot set aside order or sentence passed by trial Court—Trial Court is justified in allowing application under Section 22(b) of KCOCA Act while extending time—Appeals dismissed. (Paras 11, 15, 18 and 19)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K. Natarajan, J.—Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 have filed Criminal Appeal No.100329/2020 whereas accused No.8 filed Criminal Appeal No.100327/2020 under Section 12 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the KCOCA Act’, for brevity), against the common order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge (KCOCA Special Judge), Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’, for brevity) in Crime No.72/2020 registered by Gokak Town Police Station.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel Zaheerabbas M. Hattarki and Harshwardhan M. Patil, for the appellants and learned SPP Sri. V. M. Sheelvant for the respondent-State. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is retained for brevity.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, the Gokak Town Police registered the case in crime No.72/2020 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504, 506, 120(B) R/w. Section 149 of IPC, Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 25(1)A of Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the KCOCA Act. The accused persons were arrested by the police and they were remanded to judicial custody and the police required to file the charge sheet within 90 days from the date of their arrest. During the pendency of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) through the public prosecutor moved an application under Section 22 of the KCOCA Act for extension of time by another 90 days for filing of the charge sheet. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge allowed the application on 30.07.2020. Subsequently, the accused persons moved an application under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking statutory bail for non-filing of the charge sheet within the prescribed time, which came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the accused persons 1 to 9 have preferred these appeals.
4. Learned SPP Sri.V. M. Sheelvant filed detailed objections.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused contended that the order passed by the trial Court extending the time for filing of the charge sheet and rejection of the bail application of the accused u/s. 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. are against the provisions of law. Section 22 of the KCOCA Act is synonyms to the section 21 of the MCOC Act, Section 20 of the TADA Act, Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, Section 43D(2) (b) of the Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 and Section 49(2)(b) of POTA Act.
Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that, in order to extend the time limit for filing of the charge sheet, the public prosecutor is required to file a detailed report under Section 22 of the KCOCA Act, which is not filed. On the other hand, he has forwarded the report of the I.O. and based upon the said report of the I.O. the trial Court extended the time limit which is not correct and against the judgment of the Hon’le Apex Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602. There is no notice issued to the accused persons prior to extending the time for filing the charge sheet as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Hitendra Vishnu’s case (supra) and thereby order of the trial Court is sheer violation of the principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel further contended that the Coordinate Bench of this Court also observed the same in the case of Sayeed Majid Ahamed Vs. State of Karnataka passed Criminal Petition No.4398/2020 and connected matter. In a similar case the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the order of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad and directed the District Judge to dispose the matter on merits. Even while rejecting the application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., has observed, the report of the prosecutor is essential, but the public prosecutor has not filed any in depende
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.