LexSANJAY KUMAR KEDIA @ SANJAY KEDIA versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 555 SANJAY KUMAR KEDIA @ SANJAY KEDIA A V. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2008-2009 of 2008) AUGUST 20, 2009* [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: B c s. 36-A (4), proviso - Extension of custody to complete investigation - Conditions to be satisfied - Held: In the instant case, there was no application of mind by the public prosecutor - Progress of investigation was not indicated - Compelling reasons which required extension of custody 0 beyond 180 days were not shown - Both the extensions being contrary to law, struck down. s. 36-A (4), proviso read with s. 167 (2) Cr. P.C. - Application for bail on the ground that investigation was not completed within the extended time - Extensions having been E held contrary to law, appellant released on bail. The appellant was arrested on 12.2.2007 on the allegations that he committed offences punishable ulss 24, 29, 30 and 38 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic F Substances Act, 1985. On 2.8.2007 respondent no.1 applied for and was granted extension of time u/s 36-A (4) of the Act and custody of accused to complete the investigation and file the complaint. Again on 30.1.2008 respondent no. 1 applied for and was allowed time till G 13.2.2008. On 4.2.2008 the appellant filed an application for bail on the ground that the investigation was not completed within the extended period. The application was rejected. The appellant filed revision petitions before * Judgment Received on 6.2.2010. 555 H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R. A the High Court challenging the orders granting the second extension and rejecting his bail application. The High Court dismissed both the petitions. Aggrieved, the accused filed the appeals. B Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The proviso to s. 36-A (4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 authorizes the period of detention which may in total go upto one year, provided the stringent conditions laid down therein C are satisfied and complied with. The conditions provided are: (1) a report is given by the public prosecutor; (2) which indicates the progress of the investigation; (3) specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days; D and (4) after notice to the accused. [Para 9) [562-D-G] 1.2. The application dated 2.8.2007 shows that it has been filed by the investigating officer of respondent no.1 and does not indicate even remotely any application of E mind on the part of the public prosecutor. It further does not indicate the progress of the investigation, nor the compelling reasons which required an extension of custody beyond 180 days. This application was allowed by the Special Judge on the day on which it was filed ' which also reveals that no notice had been issued to the F accused and he was not even present in court on that day. The second application dated 30.1.2008 is even more incomprehensible. A bare perusal of this application would reveal that it does not even remotely satisfy the tests laid down in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur's case. Thus the G extensions granted to the investigating department under the proviso to s. 36-A (4) did not satisfy the conditions laid down therein and both the extensions, therefore, being contrary to law, must be struck down accordingly. [Para 14 and 16) [566-F-H; 567-A-B-G; 568-B-C] H SANJAY KUMAR KEDIA@SANJAY KEDIA v. 1557 INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTIC CONTROL 6UREAU Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others v. State of A Maharashtra and Others 1994 (4) SCC 602 and Uday Mohan/a/ Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453, relied on. 1.3. As rer •rds the rejection of the application for bail 8 filed by the acc,;used under the default clause, the Special Judge observed that the period of investigation was ext~nded on two occasions and the complaint had been filed before that expiry of the last extended date and as the allegations were serious, the appellant was not entitled to ball. The High Court while noticing the decision C in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur's case has deviated from its observations and side stepped the very categorical directions given by this Court, on wholly irrelevant considerations. In this view of the matter, the orders dated 13.2.2008 and 5.9.2008 passed by the Special Judge and D the High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.