Investigation of the case completed within 90 days hence accused not entitled for bail.

This revision has been directed against the Order passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thenkanikottai in Crl.M.P.No.1334/2002, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioners under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioners are accused in Cr.No.121/2002 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thali Police Station. They were remanded to custody for offences punishable under Secs.147, 148 and 302 IPC and Sec.25(A) of the Indian Arms Act. Investigation was completed and final report was filed on 26.8.2002, but the learned Magistrate returned the final report remarking that the prosecution under the Arms Act requires sanction from the authorities concerned. The petitioners filed a petition under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C on 28.8.2002 requesting the Court to release them on bail, since investigation was not concluded within a period of 90 days as per Sec.167 (2) Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the learned Magistrate is wrong in dismissing the petition since on the date when the petition was filed, no charge sheet was filed on the file of the learned Magistrate concerned. In support of his contention he also relies on a ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1994 Crl.L.J. 257 in the case of M.C. Venkatareddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the learned Judge has held as follows:

"In the instant cases, while the petitioners in Crl.P.341/93 are remanded to judicial custody on 30.9.1992 and the period of 90 days expired on 28.12.1992, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.559/93 was remanded to judicial custody on 29.10.1992 and the period of 90 days expired on 26.1.1993. The application was filed by the accused to release them on bail since the period of 90 days expired and there is no police report before the Court and the Magistrate has failed to take cognizance of the cases. The same was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled for bail under Sec.167(2) Crl.P.C because the SHO (Station House Officer), filed the charge-sheet already within 90 days on 28.12.1992 and that the same was returned to comply the objections. From this, it is crystal clear that there was no police report on record of the court and even on its own showing, the prosecution has not filed the report conforming to the requirements of Sections 173(2) and 173(5) and as such the same was returned. Inasmuch as the charge-sheet was not in conformity with the procedure established by law and as the same was returned, the action of the Magistrate in returning the same was only administrative in nature and not judicial and the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence as the charge-sheet was not filed as contemplated under law and was not there on record within the stipulated time of 90 days. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to just file some sort of police report not conforming to the provisions of Sections 173(2) and 173(5) Cr.P.C and then play fraud not only on the statute but also on the Constitution. This kind of tactics by the police to water down and nullify the constitutional and statutory guarantees cannot be countenanced and in fact, the Courts should keep a strict vigil on this kind of unscrupulous acts of officers to get over the constitutional and statutory mandate of filing a charge-sheet within the stipulated time under the guise of filing defective charge-sheet and then knowing fully well that it will be returned. Until a charge-sheet with all specifications enumerated under Sec.173(2) Cr.P.C and accompaniments under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C is filed into the court and the court scrutinises it on its administrative side to satisfy that all such documents are in order and unless the court takes it on record and keeps it on its file for examination for taking cognizance or not, it cannot be said that a police report (charge-sheet) is filed as contemplated under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Once the po