THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 13-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
SURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 264 of  2019)
FEBRUARY 13, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, L. NAGESWARA RAO AND
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 –  s.43D(2)(b),
proviso – Claim of respondents/detenues for default bail based on
the plea of non-fulfilment of requirement of proviso to s.43D(2)(b)
– In the instant case, application for extension of period for
investigation was filed  by IO – On the same day itself, another
application was filed under s.43D of the Act, for extension of
period for further investigation and filing of charge-sheet in the
said crime enumerating grounds in detail and signed by the Public
Prosecutor – Request made in the application was granted –
Aggrieved, respondents challenged the said order before High Court
– High Court held that the Public Prosecutor did not apply his mind
and thus mandatory requirement of the proviso to  s.43D(2)(b) was
not fulfilled – On appeal, held: The first document, purporting to
be the application of the IO, contained the reasons for extended
period of investigation but the second document detailed out the
grounds in extenso and cannot be said to be a mere reproduction of
what was stated in the first document – The second document talked
about the development and progress in the investigation –
A perusal of the grounds showed that the allegation was that all the
respondents were active members of the banned organisation and
in the course of investigation, the seized electronic records were
sent to FSL, Mumbai, for its report, which was still awaited – The
data was stated to be voluminous and further investigation was
also required into the funding of the accused persons – The
criminal conspiracy was stated to be spread over a number of
cities, which needed further investigation – Further, the telephonic
interconnection between the respondents and other ‘absconding
and underground accused persons’ was also set out as grounds for
seeking the extension – The material set out in this document met
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 310
310
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
with the requirements of the proviso, insofar as the reasons for
seeking extension for the period of investigation were concerned –
It cannot, thus, be said that there was complete absence of
application of mind by the Public Prosecutor – Since there was, as
per the comparison of the two documents, an application of mind
by the Public Prosecutor as well as an endorsement by him, the
infirmities in the form would not entitle the respondents to benefit
of a default bail when in substance there was an application of
mind – Order of High Court is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Whether the necessary ingredients of the
proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the said Act were set out in the
application submitted:
A perusal of the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the said
Act shows that there are certain requirements that need to be
fulfilled, for its proper application. These are as under: It has not
been possible to complete the investigation within the period of
90 days. A report to be submitted by the Public Prosecutor. Said
report indicating the progress of investigation and the specific
reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90
days. Satisfaction of the Court in respect of the report of the
Public Prosecutor.  The document which purports to be the
report of the Public Prosecutor is, in the case in the form of an
application under Section 43D of the said Act.  A perusal of the
contents of the document shows that the development and
progress in the investigation have been set out. The
developments leading to the incident have also been so set forth.
A perusal of the grounds shows that the allegation is that all the
respondents are active members of the banned organisation, CPI
(Maoist).  In the course of investigation, documents, pen drives,
CD, DVD, etc. were seized and the electronic records were sent
to FSL, Mumbai, for its report, which was still awaited.  The data
was stated to be voluminous and further investigation was also
required in to the funding of the accused persons.  The criminal
conspiracy was stated to be spread over a number of cities, which
needed   further investigation, and financial details of the
respondents were still being ascertained. Further, investigation
  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SURENDRA PUNDLIK
GADLING & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT 

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