SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 83

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J
SYED IRSHAD SYED GAUS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS DARWHA TAH. AND DIST. YAVATMAL. – Respondent
BA/1141/2023



A chargesheet under the NDPS Act is complete even if it lacks a CA/FSL report, provided it is filed within the stipulated time frame, affirming the procedural integrity of the investigation.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 36-A(4) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 167(2) and 173(2) - Bail application - Chargesheet filed within 180 days; however, FSL report submitted later - Court finds that absence of FSL report does not render chargesheet incomplete - Compliance with mandatory provisions upheld. (Paras 36-49)

(B) Investigation - Proper procedures followed during arrest and search of accused as per Sections 42, 50, and 52-A of the NDPS Act - Rights of applicants informed before search. (Paras 40-46)

(C) Right to Bail - No prima facie case established for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Applications for bail rejected. (Paras 48-49)

COMMON ORDER

1. By these applications, being moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicants arrested on 18.5.2023 seek regular bail in connection with Crime No.401/2023 registered with the non-applicant police station for offences punishable under Sections 8(b), 8(c), 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act).

2. Heard learned counsel Shri S.P.Bhandarkar for applicants (in Criminal Application Nos.1141 and 1179/2023) and learned counsel Shri S.H.Sudame for applicant (in Criminal Application No.285/2024) and learned Additional Public Prosecutors Shri M.J.Khan and Ms.H.N.Prabhu for the State.

3. The accusations against applicants are on the basis of report lodged by Assistant Police Inspector Amol Krushnaji Mude, attached to the Darwha Police Station. As per his report, he received a secret information that contraband article “Mephedrone” is being transported in a white colour “Hyundai Verna Car” bearing registration No.MH-49/B/7082 and the said car is proceeding through “Samruddhi Mahamarg”. He immediately forwarded the said information to his superior i.e. Assistant Superintendent of Police and also Police Inspector, Darwha Police Station. He also called two panchas from the Panchayat Samiti Office at Darwha and also called a jeweller to weigh the contraband article. By carrying the sealing material, police officials proceeded towards spot of incident and intercepted the said car. In the said car, applicants were found. After giving their search and informing rights of applicants, under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, personal search of applicants was carried out. During the search of the said car, a box below dash board was found containing a brown colour envelope, which was opened in presence of panchas, in which “Mephedrone” powder weighing 150 grams was found. The net weight of the said mephedrone powder was 141 grams 600 miligrams. In presence of panchas, samples were obtained. Cash amount was also seized from applicants. It is also mentioned that they have kept provision for obtaining the samples in presence of the Magistrate in view of compliance under Section 52 of the NDPS Act. After a due compliance of the mandatory provision, they arrested applicants.

4. Learned counsel Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, submitted that the mandate of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act is not followed by the prosecution. Incomplete chargesheet is filed without FSL and Inventory Reports. Only the investigating agency filed applications under Section 36-A(4) for extension of time. In fact, it is to be filed through the Public Prosecutor. Thus, the prosecution has not followed due mandate and no extension was sought after expiry of 180 days for placing on record the FSL Report. The FSL Report was filed on 15.2.2024. The applications filed by the Investigating Officer neither indicate progress of investigation nor indicate compelling reasons required for extension of custody beyond 180 days. The said applications show that the FSL Report is being filed under the garb of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The act done by the Investigating Officer frustrates procedural schemes laid down under the NDPS Act. He further submitted that a plain reading of proviso to Section 36-A(4) indicates that the special court is required to consider applications filed by the Public Prosecutor indicating progress of investigation and specific reasons mentioned by the Public Prosecutor for detention of accused beyond period of 180 days. Thereafter, the special court is required to apply its own mind and pass judicial order. However, no such reports indicating the progress of the investigation nor reasons specified need for detention of the accused persons beyond the period of 180 days were filed. No notice was issued to applicants on these applications. The trial court without adhearing to the mandatory and stringent provisions took the FSL Report on record. Thus, incomplete chargesheet is filed and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top