Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Shoba @ Savitha @ Srimathi – Petitioner
Versus
The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore – Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 532 of 2020, Crl. M.P. No. 4198 of 2020
Decided On : 14-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R. Sankarasubbu.
For the Respondent: P. Kritika Kamal.
The importance of the special report filed by the Public Prosecutor in justifying the extension of the remand period under the UAP Act.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Extension of Remand Period - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 505(1)(a) IPC, Sections 20 and 38 of the UAP Act - 43-D(2)(b) of the UAP Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legality of the order accepting the report filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of the remand period under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAP Act. The judgment referenced key legal provisions such as the proviso to Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAP Act and emphasized the importance of the special report in justifying the extension of the remand period. The court also considered the interpretations of the Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur case and the practice prevailing in some Courts regarding the role of the Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer. The judgment highlighted the need for valid reasons and progress of the investigation to justify the extension of the remand period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order accepting the report filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of the remand period under the UAP Act. The petitioner was accused of being an active underground cadre of a banned outfit and providing arms training for armed struggle against the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the criminal revision, emphasizing the importance of the special report in justifying the extension of the remand period and rejecting the petitioner's contentions regarding the Public Prosecutor's actions.
Issues: The legality and validity of the order accepting the report filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of the remand period under the UAP Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The special report filed by the Public Prosecutor should reflect valid reasons and progress of the investigation to justify the extension of the remand period. The court emphasized the importance of the special report and the role of the Public Prosecutor in justifying the extension of the remand period.
Final Decision: The criminal revision stands dismissed, and the connected Crl. M.P. stands closed.
JUDGMENT :
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Prayer: Criminal Revision under Section 397(1) and 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in Crl. M.P. No. 1546 of 2020 in connection with the order dated 09.06.2020 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore and set aside the same as illegal.
1. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 09.06.2020 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl. M.P. No. 1546 of 2020 in and by which, the report filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of period of remand was accepted.
2. Heard Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. P. Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police.
3. To appreciate the rival contentions, it may be apposite to state the following minimum facts:
3.1 On 11.03.2020, the police registered a case in Cr. No. 1 of 2020 against the petitioner for the offences under Section 505(1)(a) IPC and Sections 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for brevity “the UAP Act”) and produced her before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore (for brevity “the trial Court”) on 12.03.2020 for judicial remand.
3.2 The allegation against the petitioner is that, she is an active underground cadre of C.P.I. (Maoist), a banned outfit and that she had given training in arms to others for waging armed struggle against the State.
3.3 Her judicial custody was periodically extended at the request of the police and under normal circumstances, the maximum period to which she could have been kept in judicial custody pending investigation was upto 08.06.2020.
3.4 On 02.06.2020, the Public Prosecutor before the trial Court filed a report under the first proviso to Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAP Act (for brevity “the special report”) stating that the investigation cannot be completed before 08.06.2020 and sought extension of time for the detention of the petitioner beyond the period of 90 days.
3.5 The aforesaid petition was numbered as Crl. M.P. No. 1546 of 2020 and notice was ordered on the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner filed counter objection.
3.6 After hearing either side, the trial Court, by order dated 09.06.2020 in Crl. M.P. No. 1546 of 2020 in Cr. No. 1 of 2020, accepted the special report of the Public Prosecutor, assailing the correctness of which, the instant criminal revision has been preferred.
4. Mr. Sankarasubbu made the following submissions:
(a) As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602, the Investigating Officer should have submitted himself to the scrutiny of the Public Prosecutor and only after the Public Prosecutor was satisfied with the bona fides in the request of the Investigating Officer, can the former file a special report under Section 43-D of the UAP Act seeking extension of remand period.
(b) The Public Prosecutor should have appended the request letter of the Investigating Officer to his special report.
(c) The request given by the Public Prosecutor for the inability of the police to complete the investigation cannot hold water, especially in the light of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Settu vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vallam Police Station, 2020 (4) CTC 533 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasi vs. State through Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, 2020 (4) CTC 587.
(d) The report dated 02.06.2020 of the Public Prosecutor shows total non application of mind on his part. In this regard, strong reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Gautam Navlakha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, 2018 (253) DLT 392.
(e) Since the order dated 11.05.2020 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Kasi vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5296 of 202
