Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
Krishnakumari - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.141 of 2025
Decided on : 03-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram
For the Respondent: Mr.N.P.Kumar Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases
The court upheld the extension of the investigation period under the NDPS Act, confirming that valid reasons and progress reports are essential for such extensions.
Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 22(c), 27(A), 28, 29, and 36A(4) - Criminal Revision Petition to set aside order extending investigation period beyond 180 days - Petitioners A4 and A6 were arrested for offences involving commercial quantities of drugs - The Special Court allowed extension for investigation despite objections regarding lack of progress report - Court emphasized that extension is permissible under Section 36A(4) with valid reasons. (Paras 5, 12, 14, 15)
(B) Right to Bail - The right under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is indefeasible; however, the Special Court considered the nature of the offences and the necessity for a thorough investigation. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners A4 and A6 were arrested for drug-related offences involving significant quantities of contraband and cash. The investigation was not completed within the statutory period of 180 days, prompting the prosecution to seek an extension. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution provided valid reasons for the extension request, including the need for international cooperation and detailed investigation. (Paras 12, 16)
Issues: The key issues included whether the prosecution adequately justified the extension of the investigation period beyond 180 days and whether the petitioners' rights were infringed. (Paras 6, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's explanation for the delay was sufficient, and the Special Court acted within its authority under the NDPS Act to grant an extension based on the complexity of the case. (Paras 12, 16)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 09.12.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.13778 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai in R.R.No.37 of 2024 on the file of the respondent, as devoid of merits
2. The petitioners were arrayed as A4 and A6 in R.R.No.37 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-Police herein for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c), 27(A), 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for brevity]. The first petitioner-A4 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.06.2024 and the second petitioner-A6 was formally arrested on 25.06.2024 and produced before the Court on 26.06.2024 on P.T.Warrant and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody on 26.06.2024.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.06.2024 at Service Road, near Revathi Stores, Redhills, Chennai, the respondent-Police seized 1.470 kgs of Amphetamine from the accused persons viz., Madhushan-A1 and Ajanthan-A2, who are Srilankan nationals. Based on the confession of A1 and A2, the confession statement of Anton Sanujan-A3 was recorded and thereafter, A1 to A3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.06.2024. It is further stated that based on the confession statement given by A1 to A3, the first petitioner-A4 and A5 were served with summons on 14.06.2024 under Section 67 of NDPS Act, with a direction to appear before the NCB office, Ayyapakkam, Chennai in connection with seizure of 1.470 kgs of Amphetamine, which came to be seized on 11.06.2024 and also follow up seizure of drug source money amounting of Rs.1,29,04,800/- and other foreign currencies which came to be seized on 14.06.2024 at Hawala agent shop No.193/138, Angappa Naicken Street, Mannady, Chennai. The accused A4 and A5 appeared and gave their voluntary statement and they were arrested on 17.06.2024 and remanded to judicial custody. Based on the confession statement of the first petitioner-A4, her husband the second petitioner-A6, who was already undergoing incarceration from December 2021 for involvement in another case and who was lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal was formally arrested on 25.06.2024 in the presence of the Jail Authority and remanded to judicial custody on 26.06.2024. Later, based on the information received from A5, the confession statement of Nisardeen-A7 was recorded and he was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody on18.07.2024.
4. The further case of the prosecution is that since the investigation could not be completed within 180 days from the date of remand of the accused persons, the investigating agency filed a petition seeking extension of time and the same was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.13778 of 2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners –A4 and A6 have filed the present revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner-A4 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.06.2024 and the second petitioner-A6 was formally arrested on 25.06.2024 and remanded to judicial custody on 26.06.2024. He further submitted that as per Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, any offence involving commercial quantity, the investigation has to be completed within 180 days, in case, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the statutory period, 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.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, despite lapse of 180 days, the respondent-Police did not file final report, instead, they have filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.13778 of 2024 seeking further extension of statutory period of investigation for a period of three months. The learned Special Judge failed to consider that according to Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act the extension is not an automatic and the Court can order for further pe
