IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. C. Mathur, B. L. Loomba
MAHESH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition 2963 Of 1986
Decided On : 05/06/1986
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - SECTIONS 8/18, 8/20, 53 - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTIONS 167, 190 - SUMMARY: The petitioner, arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, sought release on habeas corpus due to the failure of the authorities to file a charge sheet within 90 days as required by section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that section 167 was not applicable as the investigation was conducted by officers appointed under the Narcotic Act and not by the police.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested under sections 8/18 and 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and detained in jail. After completing the investigation, the Customs authorities filed a complaint on March 22, 1986, within 90 days of the arrest. The petitioner applied for release on bail, arguing that the charge sheet was not filed within the 90-day period specified in section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable to the case as the investigation was conducted by officers appointed under the Narcotic Act and not by the police. The court found that the officers appointed under the Narcotic Act were not police officers within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure and could only file a complaint under section 190(a) of the Code, not a charge sheet under section 190(b).
Issues: 1. Whether section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied to the investigation conducted by officers appointed under the Narcotic Act. 2. Whether the officers appointed under the Narcotic Act could be considered police officers for the purpose of section 167.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply to the investigation conducted by officers appointed under the Narcotic Act because: 1. Section 167 deals with investigation by the police and does not refer to any other investigation. 2. The officers appointed under the Narcotic Act are not police officers within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The Narcotic Act is a complete code relating to offenses under the Act, and therefore, Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which contains section 167, is not applicable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
( 1 ) THE petitioner who was arrested under sections 8/18 and 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985 ). , for short The Narcotic Act has sought his release from detention through writ of Habeas Corpus on the sole ground that charge-sheet has not been filed against him within the period of 90 days referred to in sub-section (2) of Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short Codet.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was arrested on December 23, 1985. The arresting authority was the Central Customs and Excise Officer, On December 24, 1985 he was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow who put him in Judicial custody and sent him to jail. From time to time remand was extended and till date the petitioner continues to be detained in jail. After completing investigation the Customs authorities filed complaint on March 22, 1986. The petitioner had applied for being enlarged on bail but the application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow by his order dated February 17, 1986. Thereafter the petitioner applied for release on bail in this Court but the application was rejected by Honble P. Dayal J. , on April 15, 1986. Now, the petitioner has moved the instant application.
( 3 ) ON behalf of Union of India appearance has been put in through Sri O. K. Mehrotra Advocate. Sri Mehrotra has submitted that the present case is not governed by a section 167 of the Code in as much as the investigation was not done by the Police but the same was done by the officers appointed under the Narcotic Act. The learned counsel points out that section 167 appears in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure which bears the heading. Information to the Police and their powers to investigate in support of the plea that section 167 is not applicable the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following authorities: Badaku Joti Svant v. State of Mysore, Illias v. The Collector of Custom Madras, The Superintendent of Customs, C. I. U. , Cochin v. P. K. Ummerkutty, and M K. Ayoob and others v. Superintendent, Customs Intelligence Unit, Cochin and anothers. Sri Mehrotra has also submitted that the officers of the Customs Department are not guilty of laches in as much as they filed the complaint within 90 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed Sri Mehrotras claim that the complaint was filed on March 22, 1986. He, however, submits that the complaint cannot be equated with a charge-sheet and the Customs Officers although competent to file charge sheet preferred to file a complaint and therefore, section 167 of the Code is attracted. According to the learned counsel under section 53 of the Narcotic Act Officers appointed under the Act are Police Officers and therefore investigation by the said officers was by the Police Officers and consequently, they were competent to file charge-sheet.
( 4 ) IN view of the arguments advanced by leaned counsel for the parties the question for consideration is whether the officer appointed under the Narcotic Act can be considered to be the Police officer and the investigation by the said officers can be said to be investigation by the Police so as to attract Chapter XII of the Code.
( 5 ) SECTION 4 (1) of the Code provides that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. Sub-section (2) provides that all the offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. The offence in connection of which the petitioner has been arrested are not the offences under the Indian Penal Code, but are offences under the Narco
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.