IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.1395 of 2021

Date of Decision : 16^th December, 2021

Gajjan Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

Present :

Mr. Laghuinder Singh, Advocate

for the Petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana

for the Respondent/State.

SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the

Impugned Order dated 20^th February, 2021 passed by the Ld.

Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in the case arising out of FIR No.90,

dated 21^st August, 2020, under Sections 22, 27-A and 29 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the

NDPS Act) registered at Police Station Rori, District Sirsa, Haryana.

2.

Vide the Impugned Order, the Ld. Additional Sessions

Judge, Sirsa had dismissed the Petitioner's Application for Bail under

Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

3.

Background of the matter is that the Petitioner was

allegedly found in possession of 380 tablets of Tredol-100 SR. The

DEEPAK KUMAR

2021.12.16 17:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR No.1395 of 2021

2

Petitioner was arrested on 21^st August, 2020 and produced before the

Court on the following day. Challan against him was submitted

subsequently but it was not accompanied by the FSL Report pertaining

to the seized contraband. The Petitioner, therefore, sought

Statutory/Default Bail under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act read with

Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. by contending that the Challan so

submitted was incomplete in the absence of the FSL Report, on account

of which he was entitled to Statutory/Default Bail in view of the

decision passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal

Revision No.4659 of 2015, which was a bunch matter of which the

leading case was 'Ajit Singh @ Jeeta and another vs. State of

Punjab'.

4.

It may be mentioned that the aforesaid decision of the

Division Bench in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case (supra) was passed in

view of a question sent up for consideration in those seven cases,

which was as follows :-

<Whether the presentation of report under Section 173(2)

Cr.P.C. by the police without the report of Chemical

examiner/Forensic Science Laboratory amounts to

incomplete challan and in the absence of any extension of

time under Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the accused

is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.?=

5.

The Division Bench answered the above reference by

DEEPAK KUMAR

2021.12.16 17:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR No.1395 of 2021

3

holding that a Challan presented without Chemical Examiner's Report

can only be termed as an incomplete one, which would result in Default

Bail to the accused unless an Application was moved by the

Investigating Agency with a prayer for extension of time. The relevant

extracts from the decision of the Division Bench are set down as

below :-

<For this reason as well, it is essential that the

report of the Chemical Examiner be included in the report

under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and without which it can at best

be termed to be an incomplete challan depriving the

Magistrate of relevant material take cognizance and if it is

not submitted within the requisite period of 180 days, it

would essentially result in a default benefit to the accused

unless an application is moved by the Investigating

Agency apprising the Court of status of investigation with

a prayer for extension of time to the satisfaction of the

Court.

We emphasize on the stringent aspect of the

N.D.P.S. Act which would compellingly persuade us to

take the aforesaid view. Without determining the nature

and content of the contraband, it would be draconian to

propel an accused into the throes of a trial. The liberty of

an individual would constantly be imperiled at the hands

of dubi