IMPORTANT POINT
A valid report from the public prosecutor is essential for extending the investigation period beyond 180 days under the NDPS Act, ensuring the protection of the accused's rights.

JUDGMENT :

Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.02.2024, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Faridabad, constituted under under the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (herein referred as “NDPS Act”), whereby, the application as preferred by the prosecution for extension of time in filing the final report beyond 180 days was allowed.

2. The question which arises for consideration in the instant revision petition, as to whether, the application for extension of time filed by the investigating officer, and cross-signed by the public prosecutor, seeking an extension of time beyond 180 days, met the necessary twin conditions envisaged under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act.

3. Before this Court would embarks upon the factual aspect, as well as the legality of the impugned order, it is apt to read the relevant provision, i.e. Section 36-A(4) of the Act, which is as under:-

“36A. Offences triable by Special Courts.--

1. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

2. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

3. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

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.”

5. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

4. The proviso as attached to the above section says that the extension can only be granted, in case the twin conditions, i.e. (a) the public prosecutor would make a report indicating the progress in the investigation; (b) the specific reason for retention of accused beyond the prescribed period of 180 days, be also mentioned in the application.

5. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1994) 4 SCC 602, while dealing with the proviso inserted as (bb) in sub-section 4 of Section 20 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, which is pari materia with the proviso to subclause (4) of Section 36-A of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, it was held that for seeking extension of time the public prosecutor, after the independent application of his mind, to the request of the investigating agency is required to make a report to the court concerned, indicating therein, the progress of the investigation, and disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, also held that the public prosecutor may attach the request of the investigating officer, alongwith, his request or application and report, with that report must disclose on the face of it that he has applied his mind, and has satisfied himself with the progress of the investigation, and considered over the grant of extension of time to complete the investigation as necessary. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

“23. We may at this stage, also on a plain reading of clause (bb) of sub- section (4) of Section 20, point out that the Legislature has provided for seeking extension of time for completion of investigation on a report of the public prosecutor. The Legislature did not purposely leave it to an investigating officer to make an application for seeking extension of time from the court. This provision is in tune with the legislative intent to have the investigations completed expeditiously and not to allow an accused to be kept in continue