Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 437 (KER)

Appukuttan v. State of Kerala

2013-06-03

P.BHAVADASAN

body2013
ORDER P. Bhavadasan, J. 1. This Crl.M.C. is directed against the order dated 02.04.2013 by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam whereby, the said court allowed an application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act granting extension of period of investigation up to one year. 2. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is an allegation that huge quantity as much as 100kg of Ganja were seized from four accused persons. The fourth accused had been released on bail but accused Nos. 1 and 2 are under judicial custody. It appears that the 3rd accused has made himself scarce. From the records it is seen that the Investigating Officer, finding that he could not complete the investigation within the stipulated time namely 180 days as envisaged by provisions of the NDPS Act, filed Crl.M.P.No.675/2013 seeking further extension of time. That was very strongly opposed by the accused who pointed out that an application for extension cannot lie at the instance of the Investigating Officer but has to be filed as a report by the Public Prosecutor, which should also indicate that he has applied his mind and also assessed the progress of the investigation and he feels that further extension of time is necessary. 3. The court below holding that since the petition has been signed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it can be in law by treated as an application by him and irrespective of the fact that the affidavit and application was moved by the Investigating Officer since it has the endorsement of the Assistant Public Prosecutor it satisfies the requirements of proviso to Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and accepted the petition and granted the time sought for. The said order is under challenge. 4. At the outset itself, it may be stated that the order is clearly unsustainable both on facts and in law. The said order is under challenge. 4. At the outset itself, it may be stated that the order is clearly unsustainable both on facts and in law. It will be useful to refer to the relevant provision that is Section 36A (4) which reads as follows: "In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof ninety days�, where they occur, shall be construed as reference to one hundred and eighty days"�: Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days. � 5. We are concerned here with the application of proviso. The proviso stipulates that when investigation could not be completed within the period of 180 days granted by the main part of Clause (4), an extension of time up to a period of one year can be granted provided a report to that effect is filed by the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation and also giving specific reason for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days. 6. Proviso is explicit and very clear. It does not speak about an application by the investigating Officer but speaks about a report by the Public Prosecutor concerned. There is an ocean of difference between an application by the Investigating Officer and a report by Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned. The proviso is careful enough to indicate that the report of the Public Prosecutor so filed seeking extension of time should indicate the progress of the investigation and also should specify the reason for further detention. It leaves one in no doubt that it implies application of mind by the learned Public Prosecutor and an assessment by him of the investigation so far done and the necessity for the extension of time. 7. This issue has been considered by this Court while disposing of Bail Application No.337 of 2013 by order dated 05.02.2013. It leaves one in no doubt that it implies application of mind by the learned Public Prosecutor and an assessment by him of the investigation so far done and the necessity for the extension of time. 7. This issue has been considered by this Court while disposing of Bail Application No.337 of 2013 by order dated 05.02.2013. An identical question was considered in the said bail application and after referring to the decision reported in Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, (2009) 17 SCC 631 and also in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 . This Court held that in order to apply the above proviso, the report has been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor and it cannot be on the basis of an application filed by the Investigating Officer endorsed by the learned Public Prosecutor. This Court also drew the anology of the words contained in Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. 8. The finding of the court below that merely because the affidavit and the application have been filed by the Investigating Officer since it has been endorsed by the Public Prosecutor, it satisfy the requirements of law cannot be accepted. 9. It is submitted by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that the petitioner may be relegated to the court below to seek bail. 10. This Court feels that such a course is unnecessary. If as a matter of fact Proviso to Section 36A(4) does not apply then the petitioner is entitled to a statutory bail which is not in dispute at all. There is no reason why the petitioner should be relegated to another court for that purpose. The petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed as against the petitioner. It is accordingly set aside to that extent and the petitioner shall be released on bail on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ii) The court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Friday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders. ii) The court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Friday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders. iv) The petitioner shall produce his original passport before the court concerned. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the court concerned. v) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. vi) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the court concerned. vii) If any one of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the court concerned on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.