DEVINDERPAL SINGH versus GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 14-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

DEVINDERPAL SINGH 
v. 
GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI 
NOVEMBER 14, 1995 
[AS. ANAND AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
The Te1rorist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 
20(4)(bb)-lnvestigation-Grant of extension of time-Beyond statutory 
period of 180 days-Validity o~To be considered with reference to the facts 
as existing on date of order-Absence of report of public prosecutor-Accused 
not being produced and inf omied of the question of grant of extension being 
considered-Held: Order granting extension by Designated Court rendered 
erroneous and could not be sustained. 
A 
B 
c 
The appellant was arrested under the Terrorist and Disruptive D 
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and was remanded to judicial custody 
which was extended from time to time. Before the expiry of the statutory 
period of 180 days an application was moved in the Designated Court for 
• 
extension of time for completion of the investigation and for that purpose 
a prayer was also made for extending the period of detention of the 
appellant beyond the period 180 days. The Designated Court allowed the 
application. The appellant thereafter, moved an application in the Desig-
nated Court for bail. While the bail application was pending in the Desig-
nated Court the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that by virtue of proviso 
to Section 20(4)(bb) of the Act, it was possible for the Designated Court 
to extend the statutory period of detention beyond the prescribed period 
of 180 days only if the conditions laid down in that sub-section were 
fulfilled; that an essential requirement of sub-section ( 4) (bb) of Section 20 
E 
F 
was that there would have to be a report of the Public Prosecutor indicat-
ing the progress of the investigation and also the specific reasons for the G 
detention of the accused beyond the aforesaid statutory period; that in the 
instant case, the Public Prosecutor, had not given any such report; that 
the Designated Court 'Yas in error in extending the period of detention 
without any report of the Public Prosecutor, as required by the statute; 
and that the order was behind his back. 
H 
199 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The Designated Court granted extension of time to the 
investigating agency for completion of the investigation under Section 
20(4) (bb) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. 
This extension was granted on an application made by the investigating 
officer only and without any report of the public prosecutor. (203-G] 
1.2. The validity of an order granting extension under Section 
20(4)(bb) of the Act is to be considered with reference to the facts as 
existing on the date of the order. The order passed by the Designated Court 
C without any report of the public prosecutor and without even the appellant 
being produced and informed by the Designated Court that question of 
grant of extension of the period for completing investigation was under 
consideration, renders the order granting extension by the Designated 
Court erroneous and it cannot be sustained. [205-B-C] 
D 
Hitender Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, [1994) 4 SCC 602, 
E 
F 
referred to. 
2. An application for grant of bail on the ground that the prosecution 
had failed to confl>lete investigation within the statutory period of 180 days 
was filed and is pending before the Designated Court, this Court refrains 
from dealing with the bail application filed in this Court or express any 
opinion on the merits of the bail application pending before the Designated 
Court. (206-A-B] 
Sanjay Dutt v. State, [1994) S SCC 410, cited. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1331 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.95 of the Designated Court 
No. II, Tis Hazari, Delhi in F.I.R. No. 316/93, P.S. Parliament Street, New 
G Delhi. 
Lokesh Kumar and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellant. 
R.P. Srivastava and B.K. Prasad for the Respondent. 
H 
The fodgment of the Court was delivered by 
-
DEVINDERPALSINGHv. GOVT. OFNATIONALCAPITAL[SEN,J.] 201 
SEN, J. Special leave granted. 
Devinderpal Singh, the appellant herein, was deported from Ger-
many and was arrested on his arrival at New Delhi on the charge of having 
travelled to Germany on a false passport. A case being FIR No. 22/93 
under Section 419/420/468/471, Indian Penal Code, and Section 12 of the 
P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.