JUDGMENT :

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)

The present application has been filed under section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 02.08.2023 in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No.12 of 2023 dated 03.01.2023 under sections 21(c)/22(c)/25 of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner prays for bail upon being charged under the provisions of The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2023 and the charge-sheet was filed on 01.07.2023. The petitioner filed several applications for bail before the learned Special Court under the NDPS Act, Jalpaiguri; all of which were rejected. The petitioner is hence before us.

2. The petitioner complains that there is considerable delay in the matter since charges are still to be framed and there are 15 prosecution witnesses who are to be examined. The petitioner does not have any confidence of the trial being concluded in the near future.

3. The primary contention urged on behalf of the petitioner through learned counsel is on section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act read with the proviso. Counsel submits that the I.O submitted the charge-sheet on 30.06.2023 without the CFSL/Chemical Examination Report. Counsel submits that the learned Trial Court mechanically took cognizance of the submission of the charge-sheet by the order dated 01.07.2023. Counsel relies on a line in the charge-sheet stating that a supplementary charge-sheet will be submitted after receiving of the Examination Report to submit that this is contrary to the proviso to section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel for the Prosecution submits that the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2023 contains of a prayer of the Investigating Officer for filing of a supplementary charge-sheet upon obtaining the Report of the Drug Control Laboratory and hence there is no requirement of obtaining any permission from the learned Trial Court for conducting further investigation in terms of section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Counsel places emphasis on the fact that the investigation in the present case was completed within 180 days time frame and no further extension of time was required.

5. Section 36A of the NDPS Act relates to offences triable by Special Courts. Section 36A(4) is pari materia to section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and requires investigation to be completed within the stipulated time period of 180 days. The only difference is that the time frame of 90 days under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is to be read and construed as 180 days in respect of offences punishable under the specific provisions of the NDPS Act as provided under section 36A(4) or for offences involving commercial quantity.

6. The proviso to section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act is relevant for this case and is set out below:

"36.A(4). In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days":

Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days."

7. It would be evident from the above that the proviso clearly indicates that in the event of the investigation not being completed within 180 days :

i) The Special Court may extend the period beyond 180 days but up to a maximum of one year;

ii) On the requirement of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation, and

iii) On the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days.

The points i, ii and iii are not disjunctive and