IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN C rl.R.C.No. 1 243 of 202 5

1. Prakash

2. Arul Prasanth ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Police Station Chennai.

(Crime No.54 of 2024) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS, praying to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1943 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025 0y the learned Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Subburaj For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The revision has been filed challenging the order passed by the Special Court under EC & NDPS Act in Crl.M.P.No.1943 of 2025, dated 30.04.2025 extending the time limit for filing of the final report and thereby extended the period of remand of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are the accused of the offences under section 8[c], 20[b] [ii] [C], 25 and 29[1] of NDPS Act 1985. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners were found in possession of 42 kgs of Ganja in a lorry which was seized by the respondent. The petitioners were arrested on 07.11.2024. The respondent ought to have filed the final report within a period of 180 days [i.e.] on or before 06.05.2025. On the 162nd day, the respondent had filed a petition under the proviso to Section 36[A] [4] of the NDPS Act seeking extension of the statutory period of completing investigation. The trial Court had granted the said extension by the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the report of the Public Prosecutor and the order impugned do not satisfy the requirements of proviso to Section 36[A] [4] of the NDPS Act and that the issue is covered by series of Orders passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1847 of 2024 [Mohamed Asaruthin Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Prohibition Wing], Crl.R.C.No.1307 of 2024 [S.Kuppusamy Vs. The State rp. by the Inspector of Police, PEW, Gummidipoondi Police Station] and Crl.R.C.No.918 of 2015 [Karthick Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, M.1 Madhavaram Police Station] and prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] would submit that the Public Prosecutor had valid reasons for seeking extension of time limit for completing investigation; that since the investigating officer had to collect evidence in Andhra Pradesh, he could not complete the investigation within the time prescribed by the statute; and that therefore, the report as well as the impugned order passed by the trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

5. In Crl.R.C.No.1847 of 2024 [Mohamed Asaruthin Vs. State of Tamilnadu rep. by the Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Prohibition Wing] after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court, earlier judgments of this Court and that of the Calcutta High Court, this Court by the Order dated

27.11.2024 had observed as follows :

“28. The above observations would indicate that request for extension by the prosecution and the report of the Public Prosecutor, is for the Court to consider based on the reasons assigned in the report. The presence of the accused is only to inform him about the extension of period and consider his objections, if any. Therefore, there is no necessity to call upon the accused to file a counter in the said application. All that the Court is required to consider is whether the report of the Public Prosecutor satisfied the twin requirements namely :-

a] There is appreciable progress in the investigation.

B] There are specific compelling reasons to justify further detention pending investigation.

Therefore, the trial Courts are expected to follow the above directions without any deviation and consider the applications at the earliest and not later than seven days as directed by this Court in Varun’s case [