Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Cal) 86

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Subhasis Dasgupta, J.
Rangalal Mavai - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.R. No. 324 of 2021
Decided On : 08-04-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Ayan Basu, Advocate, P.K. Das, Advocate, Sourav Bera, Advocate, Sumit Routh, Advocate, Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Advocate, Mainak Gupta, Advocate

The importance of the report of the Public Prosecutor in justifying the extension of the investigation period and the refusal of default bail.

Headnote:
NDPS - Extension of Investigation Period - Section 36-A (4) proviso of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - 36-A (4)
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was arrested for the alleged recovery of 63 kg of Ganja, above the commercial quantity. The investigation was delayed due to the non-submission of the chemical report. The court extended the investigation period and rejected the petitioner's prayer for default bail, citing the possibility of evidence tampering and the petitioner fleeing.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the extension of the investigation period was justified and refused the petitioner's default bail, considering the progress of the investigation and the reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the statutory period.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court was justified in extending the investigation period and rejecting the petitioner's default bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the report of the Public Prosecutor, indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the statutory period, as required by Section 36-A (4) proviso of NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The court refused the petitioner's default bail and disposed of the revisional application.

JUDGMENT

Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - The impugned order dated 19th December, 2020, passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in NDPS case being TR-(NDPS) 05/2020, extending the period of investigation under Section 36-A (4) proviso of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and thereby rejecting the prayer of statutory bail for the petitioner (default bail) is the subject of challenge in this revisional application.

2. Petitioner was brought arrested on 27.06.2020 by Bhagawanpur P.S. for the alleged recovery of sixty three (63) kg. of Ganja, which was above the commercial quantity. During investigation the samples of the seized articles after necessary collection were forwarded for chemical examination. The report of the said examination could not be collected by the Investigating Officer in spite of sending reminder, even by D.O. for the purpose. The investigation of the case was almost completed, but it was due to the delay in completion of the report of expert, the charge-sheet could not be submitted against the petitioner/accused person.

3. On 17th December, 2020, the Investigating Officer of this case initiated a prayer for extension of statutory period of investigation for submission of charge-sheet. After receipt of such prayer, the learned court below proceeded to pass an order dated 17th December, 2020, directing the learned Public Prosecutor-in-charge to submit a report by 18th December, 2020, in justification of the prayer of Investigating Officer, as contemplated under Section 36-A (4) proviso of NDPS Act.

4. On the scheduled date i.e. 18th December, 2020, learned Public Prosecutor-in-charge submitted his report regarding extension of statutory period of investigation of the instant case in context with the prayer of the Investigating Officer, made separately on 17th December, 2020. The prayer for extension of investigation beyond the statutory period was taken up for hearing on 19th December, 2020, in presence of learned advocate representing the accused/petitioner as well as other accused persons, and the learned advocate representing the State for the purpose.

5. The learned court below, however, by its order dated 19th December, 2020, extended the period of investigation beyond the statutory period in application of the provision of Section 36-A (4) proviso of NDPS Act, for a further period of 90 days.

6. Upon appreciating the progress of investigation together with the reasons, causing delay in the submission of the charge-sheet due to non-submission of chemical report from the expert of State Drugs Control & Research Laboratory, where the collected samples were sent for chemical examination and report, the prayer for default bail was refused by the learned court below holding that there was fair possibility of tampering of evidence in the event of accused being released on bail, and further that accused/petitioner may flee away from the clutches of the court.

7. Mr. Ayan Basu, learned advocate for the petitioner, assailing the order impugned submitted that the learned court below had improperly exercised its jurisdiction, while extending the period of investigation beyond statutory period without confering to legal requirements of law, as specifically enunciated in Section 36-A (4) proviso of NDPS Act. Mr. Basu contended that the legislator expected that the investigation be completed with utmost promptitude, but where it became necessary to seek some more time for completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer would submit himself to the scrutiny of learned Public Prosecutor, and satisfy the progress of investigation and furnish reasons for seeking further custody of an accused.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor, according to Mr. Basu, was expected to independently apply his mind to the request of Investigating Officer before submitting a report to the court for extension of time with a view to enable the Investigating Officer to complete the