CRR No. 2947 of 2016 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR No. 2947 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of decision: 03.03.2017

Satnam Singh @ Satta

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:

Mr. R.P. Dhir., Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

****

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

By way of the present criminal revision, the petitioner

has challenged the impugned order dated 09.08.2016 (Annexure P-

4), passed by Judge Special Court, Hoshiarpur whereby, the

application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner was

dismissed and application under Section 36(A) of NDPS Act for

extension of time period, filed by the prosecution was allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner was arrested on 09.01.2016 and produced on 10.01.2016.

The 180 days were to expire on 08.07.2016. The prosecution filed an

application for extension of time on 04.07.2016 and another

extension was granted on 09.08.2016 which was beyond the period

Sumit Kumar

2017.03.27 16:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CRR No. 2947 of 2016 (O&M)

-2-

of 210 days. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel cites

Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001(2) RCR

(Criminal) 452, Nardev Inder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2015(4)

RCR (Criminal) 509, Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2015(4)

Criminal) 557, Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2015(4) RCR

(Criminal) 156, Ravinder @ Binder Vs. State of Haryana, 2015(4)

RCR (Criminal) 441, Som Nath and another Vs. State of Punjab,

2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 515, Satnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

2013(2) RCR (Criminal) 356, UOI through CBI Vs. Nirala Yadav

@ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav, 2014(3) RCR (Criminal)

534 and Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State, GNCTD and

others, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 875 and states that the fact of filing

the application under Section 36(A) of NDPS Act is of no

consequence and a decision thereof is the relevant factor.

Heard.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Nirala

Yadav @ Raj Ram Yadav, 2014 (4) Recent Apex Judgments

(RAJ) 365, observed as under:-

“Coming to the facts of the instant case, we find

that prior to the date of expiry of 90 days which is the

initial period for filing the charge-sheet, the

prosecution neither had filed the charge-sheet nor had

it filed an application for extension. Had an

application for extension been filed, then the matter

would have been totally different. After the accused

Sumit Kumar

2017.03.27 16:53

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CRR No. 2947 of 2016 (O&M)

-3-

respondent filed the application, the prosecution

submitted an application seeking extension of time for

filing of the charge-sheet. Mr. P.K. Dey, learned

counsel for the appellant would submit that the same is

permissible in view of the decision in Bipin Shantilal

Panchal (supra) but on a studied scrutiny of the same

we find the said decision only dealt with whether

extension could be sought from time to time till the

completion of period as provided in the Statute i.e.,

180 days. It did not address the issue what could be

the effect of not filing an application for extension

prior to expiry of the period because in the factual

matrix it was not necessary to do so. In the instant

case, the day the accused filed the application for

benefit of the default provision as engrafted under

proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 167 CrPC the

Court required the accused to file a rejoinder affidavit

by the time the initial period provided under the

statute had expired. There was no question of any

contest as if the application for extension had been

filed prior to the expiry of time. The adjournment by

the learned Magistrate was misconceived. He was

obliged on that day to deal with the application filed

by