Rajpal @ Billu v. State of Haryana

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby the application dated 02.08.2022 filed by the Police officials of the Police Station Ganaur through the Public Prosecutor seeking time for furnishing the final report in case FIR No.92 dated 13.02.2022 under Sections 20, 25 of NDPS Act at Police Station Ganaur, Sonepat has been allowed.

¶2The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on patrolling duty, secret information was received that Mani Ram son of Rajender, Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh and Vishal son of Hoshiar Singh were moving around in the village carrying a heavy quantity of charas with them in a black coloured Tata Harrier car and if JITESH LAL barricading was done on the road from Panchi Jattan to Rajpur, the three accused could be apprehended along with the vehicle and narcotics. Based on the information, a report was prepared and sent to the Police Station Ganaur in this regard. Meanwhile, the police party started checking vehicles and after some time the car in question was seen coming from the side of Panchi Jattan. It was stopped. Two boys alighted from the vehicle. One young boy was sitting on the driver seat and one boy ran away from the spot. The arrested boys disclosed their names as Mani Ram son of Rajender and the driver as Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh. The boy who ran away was Vishal. Thereafter, the recovery of 1 kg 800gms of charas came to be effected from the dash board of the vehicle. The copy of the FIR is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.

¶3As the petitioner came to be arrested on 13.02.2022, the period of 180 days to present the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was to be completed on 11.08.2022. Therefore, an application was moved by the Investigating Officer seeking extension of time for presentation of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The copy of the said application dated

02.08.2022 is attached as Annexure P-6 to the petition. The said application was forwarded by the Public Prosecutor and vide the impugned order, the extension sought by the Investigating Agency for presentation of challan was allowed. The copy of the impugned order extending the time period for completion of investigation by 3 months dated 02.08.2022 is the order impugned in the present petition.

¶4Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 30.08.2022. The same came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2022. The copies of the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the rejection order are attached as Annexures P-3 and P-4 to the petition. A separate revision petition has been filed challenging Annexure P-4.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution had not moved any application seeking extensionof time in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioner's right to seek default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. had accrued. A perusal of the application dated 02.08.2022 would reveal that it was moved by the Police officials of the Police Station Ganaur though it has been forwarded through the Public Prosecutor. The Trial Court had, without applying its judicious mind extended the period for completion of investigation by 90 days which was in violation of the mandatory procedure as laid down in Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985. As the extension has been allowed illegally, the bail application moved by the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was also dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2022 which order is impugned in a separate petition. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments in Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau & Another, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 942, Joginder Singh Versus State of Haryana, CRR-1314-2021, decided on 11.02.2022, Rohtash @ Raju Versus State of Haryana, CRR-933-2022, decided on

01.06.2022, Dhruv Kumar @ Alok & others Versus State of Haryana, CRR-363-2023, decided on 13.03.2023 and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra, 1994(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 156.

¶6A reply dated 11.02.2023 by way of an affidavit of AtmaRam,HPS Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gannaur, Sonipathas been filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. He contends that since commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from the petitioner, he was not entitled to the grant of bail. The application for extension had been moved in accordance with law and therefore, the extension of 90 days for completion of investigation had rightly been granted consequent to which his prayer for grant of default bail under Sections 167(2) Cr.P.C. had been dismissed.Even otherwise, the FSL report had been obtained and the challan had already been submitted in Court on 05.11.2022.

¶7I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶8Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of law. The same are enumerated hereinbelow:-Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, reads as under:-[36A.o Offenceso triableo byo Specialo Courts.-(1)o Notwithstan in!o anythin!o containe o ino theo Co eo ofo Cri"inalo#roce ure$o1%&3o('oofo1%&()$ -

(a)oallooffencesounderothisoActowhichoareopunishableo witho imprisonmento foro ao termo ofo moreo thano threeo yearso shallo beo triableo onlyo byo theo Specialo Courto constitutedoforotheoareaoinowhichotheooffenceohasobeeno committedoorowhereothereoareomoreoSpecialoCourtso thanooneoforosuchoarea,obyosuchooneoofothemoasomayo beospecifiedoinothisobehalfobyotheoGovernment;o

(b)owhereo aopersono accusedo ofooro suspectedo ofo theo commissionoofoanooffenceounderothisoActoisoforwardedo tooaoMagistrateounderosub-sectiono(2)oorosub-sectiono

(2A)o ofo sectiono 167o ofo theo Codeo ofo Criminalo Procedure,o1973o(2oofo1974),osuchoMagistrateomayo authoriseo theo detentiono ofo sucho persono ino sucho custodyoasoheothinksofitoforoaoperiodonotoexceedingo fifteenodaysoinotheowholeowhereosuchoMagistrateoisoao Judicialo Magistrateo ando seveno dayso ino theo wholeo whereosuchoMagistrateoisoanoExecutiveoMagistrate:o oooProvidedo thato ino caseso whicho areo triableo byo theo SpecialoCourtowhereosuchoMagistrateoconsiders -o

(i)owheno sucho persono iso forwardedo too himo aso aforesaid;oor

(ii)ouponooroatoanyotimeobeforeotheoexpiryoofotheoperiodoofo detentionoauthorisedobyohim,othatotheodetentionoofosucho personoisounnecessary,oheoshalloorderosuchopersonotoobeo forwardedotootheoSpecialoCourtohavingojurisdiction;

(c)otheo Specialo Courto mayo exercise,o ino relationo too theo personoforwardedotooitounderoclauseo(b),otheosameopowero whichoaoMagistrateohavingojurisdictionotootryoaocaseomayo exerciseo undero sectiono 167o ofo theo Codeo ofo Criminalo Procedure,o1973o(2oofo1974),oinorelationotooanoaccusedo personoinosuchocaseowhoohasobeenoforwardedotoohimoundero thatosection; JITESH LAL

(d)oaoSpecialoCourtomay,ouponoperusaloofopoliceoreportoofo theo factso constitutingo ano offenco undero thiso Acto oro upono complaintomadeobyoanoofficeroofotheoCentraloGovernmento oro ao Stateo Governmento authorisedo ino hiso behalf,o takeo cognizanceo ofo thato offenceo withouto theo accusedo beingo committedotooitoforotrial.

(2)oWhenotryingoanooffenceounderothisoAct,oaoSpecialoCourto mayoalsootryoanooffenceootherothanoanooffenceounderothiso Acto witho whicho theo accusedo may,o undero theo Codeo ofo CriminaloProcedure,o1973o(2oofo1974),obeochargedoatotheo sameotrial.

(3)oNothingocontainedoinothisosectionoshallobeodeemedotoo affectotheospecialopowersoofotheoHighoCourtoregardingobailo undero sectiono 439o ofo theo Codeo ofo Criminalo Procedure,o 1973o(2oofo1974),oandotheoHighoCourtomayoexerciseosucho powerso includingo theo powero undero cluaseo (b)o ofo sub-sectiono (1)o ofo thato sectiono aso ifo theo referenceo too "Magistrate"oinothatosectionoincludedoalsooaoreferenceotooao "SpecialoCourt"oconstitutedounderosectiono36.

(4)oInorespectoofopersonsoaccusedoofoanooffenceopunishableo undero sectiono 19o oro sectiono 24o oro sectiono 27Ao oro foro offencesoinvolvingocommercialoquantityotheoreferencesoino sub-sectiono (2)o ofo sectiono 167o ofo theo Codeo ofo Criminalo Procedure,o 1973o (2o ofo 1974),o thereofo too "ninetyo days",o whereotheyooccur,oshallobeoconstruedoasoreferenceotoo"oneo hundredoandoeightyodays":o o Providedo that,o ifo ito iso noto possibleo too completeo theo investigationowithinotheosaidoperiodoofooneohundredoando eightyodays,otheoSpecialoCourtomayoextendotheosaidoperiodo upo too oneo yearo ono theo reporto ofo theo Publico Prosecutoro indicatingo theo progresso ofo theo investigationo ando theo specificoreasonsoforotheo etentionoofotheoaccuse obeyon o theosai operio oofooneohun re oan oei!htyo ays.o

(9)oNotwithstan in!o anythin!o containe o ino theo Co eo ofo Cri"inalo #roce ure$o 1%&3o ('o ofo 1%&()$o theo offenceso punishableoun erothisoActowithoi"prison"entoforoaoter"oofo noto"oreothanothreeoyearso"ayobeotrie osu""arily.: Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., reads as under:-

¶167Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours.- (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that-

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;] [(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend in any custody under further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;]

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police."

¶9The relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court are as under:- o "heo on#$leo Supre%eo &ourto ino Sanjayo Kumaro Kediao @o SanjayoKedia'supra(oheldoasounder:)

10.o Theo maximumo periodo ofo 90o dayso fixedo undero Sectiono167o(2)oofotheoCodeohasobeenoincreasedotoo180odayso foro severalo categorieso ofo offenceso undero theo Acto buto theo provisooauthorizesoaoyetofurtheroperiodoofodetentionowhicho mayo ino totalo goo uptoo oneo year,o providedo theo stringento conditionsoprovidedothereinoareosatisfiedoandoareocompliedo with.oTheoconditionsoprovidedoareo:

(1)oaoreportoofotheopublicoprosecutor,o

(2)owhichoindicatesotheoprogressoofotheoinvestigation,o ando

(3)ospecifiesotheocompellingoreasonsoforoseekingotheo detentiono ofo theo accusedo beyondo theo periodo ofo 180o days,oando

(4)oafteronoticeotootheoaccused.o

11.oTheoquestionotoobeonoticedoatothisostageoisoasotoowhethero theotwooapplicationsoforoextensionothatohadobeenofiledobyo theo publico prosecutoro seekingo ano extensiono beyondo 180o daysometotheonecessaryoconditions.oWeofindothatotheomattero needonotodetainousoasoitoisonoolongeroresointegraoandoiso completelyo coveredo byo theo judgmento ofo thiso Courto ino HitendraoVishnu'socaseo(supra).oInothisocase,otheoBenchowaso dealingowithotheoprovisooinsertedoasoclauseo(bb)oinoSub-sectiono (4)o ofo Sectiono20oofo TADA,o whicho iso parimateriao withotheoprovisootooSub-Sectiono(4)oofoSectiono36Aoofotheo Act.oThisoCourtoacceptedotheoargumentoofotheoaccusedothato anoextensionobeyondo180odaysocouldobeograntedobutolaidoao ridero thato ito couldo beo soo aftero certaino conditionso wereo satisfied.oItowasoobservedo: "oItoisotrueothatoneitheroclauseo(b)onoroclauseo(bb)oofo sub-sectiono (4)o ofo Sectiono20oTADAo specificallyo provideoforotheoissuanceoofosuchoaonoticeobutoinoouro opinionotheoissuanceoofosuchoaonoticeomustobeoreadointoo theseoprovisionsobothoinotheointerestoofotheoaccusedoando theoprosecutionoasowelloasoforodoingocompleteojusticeo betweeno theo parties.o Thiso iso ao requiremento ofo theo principlesoofonaturalojusticeoandotheoissuanceoofonoticeo tootheoaccusedoorotheopublicoprosecutor,oasotheocaseo mayobe,owouldoaccordowithofairoplayoinoaction,owhicho theocourtsohaveoalwaysoencouragedoandoevenoinsistedo upon.oItowouldoalsoostrikeoaojustobalanceobetweenotheo interestoofotheolibertyoofoanoaccusedoonotheooneohando ando theo societyo ato largeo througho theo prosecutingo agencyoonotheootherohand.oThereoisonooprohibitionotoo theoissuanceoofosuchoaonoticeotootheoaccusedoorotheo publico prosecutoro ino theo schemeo ofo theo Acto ando noo prejudiceowhatsoeverocanobeocausedobyotheoissuanceoofo suchoaonoticeotooanyoparty. Mr.o Lalit,o haso furthero contendedo thato theo twoo applicationso foro extensiono ofo timeo couldo not,o byo anyo stretcho ofo imagination,o beo saido too beo reportso ofo theo publico prosecutoro aso envisagedo undero Sectiono36Ao(4)o andohasoagainoreferredousotootheocaseoibidemo: Aopublicoprosecutoroisoanoimportantoofficeroofotheo Stateo Governmento ando iso appointedo byo theo Stateo underotheoCodeoofoCriminaloProcedure.oHeoisonotoao parto ofo theo investigatingo agency.o Heo iso ano independento statutoryo authority.o Theo publico prosecutoroisoexpectedotooindependentlyoapplyohiso mindo too theo requesto ofo theo investigatingo agencyo beforeosubmittingoaoreportotootheocourtoforoextensiono ofo timeo witho ao viewo too enableo theo investigatingo agencyo too completeo theo investigation.o Heo iso noto merelyo ao posto officeo oro ao forwardingo agency.o Ao publicoprosecutoromayooromayonotoagreeowithotheo reasonso giveno byo theo investigatingo officero foro seekingo extensiono ofo timeo ando mayo findo thato theo investigationo hado noto progressedo ino theo propero mannero oro thato thereo haso beeno unnecessary,o deliberateo oro avoidableo delayo ino completingo theo investigation.oInothatoevent,oheomayonotosubmitoanyo reporto too theo courto undero clauseo (bb)o too seeko extensiono ofo time.o Thus,o foro seekingo extensiono ofo timeounderoclauseo(bb),otheopublicoprosecutoroaftero ano independento applicationo ofo hiso mindo too theo requestoofotheoinvestigatingoagencyoisorequiredotoo makeoaoreportotootheoDesignatedoCourtoindicatingo thereino theo progresso ofo theo investigationo ando disclosingojustificationoforokeepingotheoaccusedoino furtherocustodyotooenableotheoinvestigatingoagencyo toocompleteotheoinvestigation.oTheopublicoprosecutoro mayoattachotheorequestoofotheoinvestigatingoofficero alongowithothisorequestooroapplicationoandoreport,o butohisoreport,oasoenvisagedounderoclauseo(bb),omusto discloseoonotheofaceoofoitothatoheohasoappliedohiso mindo ando waso satisfiedo witho theo progresso ofo theo investigationoandoconsideredograntoofofurtherotimeo toocompleteotheoinvestigationonecessary.oTheouseoofo theo expressiono "ono theo reporto ofo theo publico prosecutoro indicatingo theo progresso ofo theo investigationo ando theo specifico reasonso foro theo detentionoofotheoaccusedobeyondotheosaidoperiod"oaso occurringo ino clauseo (bb)o ino sub-sectiono (2)o ofo Sectiono167oaso amendedo byo Sectiono20(4)o areo importantoandoindicativeoofotheolegislativeointentonoto tookeepoanoaccusedoinocustodyounreasonablyoandotoo granto extensiono onlyo ono theo reporto ofo theo publico prosecutor.o Theo reporto ofo theo publico prosecutor,o therefore,oisonotomerelyoaoformalityobutoaoveryovitalo report,obecauseotheoconsequenceoofoitsoacceptanceo affectso theo libertyo ofo ano accusedo ando ito must,o therefore,ostrictlyocomplyowithotheorequirementsoaso containedo ino clauseo (bb).o Theo requesto ofo ano investigatingo officero foro extensiono ofo timeo iso noo substituteoforotheoreportoofotheopublicoprosecutor.

12.o Theo courto furthero wento ono too sayo thato eveno ifo theo applicationo foro extensiono ofo timeo waso eithero rootedo throughotheopublicoprosecutoroorosupportedobyohimowouldo noto makeo theo saido applicationo ao reporto ofo theo publico prosecutor.o

13.oMr.oBhattacharjeeohas,ohowever,opointedooutothatotheo applicationsoforoextensionofiledobyotheopublicoprosecutoro Sectiono36Ao(4)o ofo theo Acto dido satisfyo theo aforesaido conditionsoandomerelyobecauseoanoindependentoreportohado noto beeno tenderedo wouldo noto changeo theo natureo ofo theo application.oWeoreproduceohereinotheoapplicationodatedo 2ndoAugust,o2007oforoextensionoofotimeoinoextensoo:

1.o That,o theo aforesaido persono waso arrestedo ono

12.02.2007oinoconnectionowithoillegalodistributionoofo psychotropico substanceso externallyo througho theo internet.o

2.o Thato heo waso producedo beforeo youro honouro ono

12.02.2007o ando thereaftero heo waso remandedo too judicialocustodyoinoDumoDumoCorrectionaloHome.o

3.oThatotheoinvestigationoofotheocaseoisostilloon.o

4.o Thato ao connected/relatedo caseo againsto theo associateso ofo theo presentoaccusedo personoiso beingo investigatedo byo theo Drugo Enforcemento Administrationo (DEA),o USAo ando theo investigationo report/collectedo documentso areo highlyo relevant/essentialoinoprovingotheocase.oInothisoregardo necessaryo steps,o sendingo letterso too thato competento authority,ohasoalreadyobeenotaken.o

5.oThat,otheoServers,oLaptop,oCDsoetc.oasoseizedoino connectionowithothisocase,owhichohasoalreadyobeeno reportedo beforeo Youro Honouro earlier,o wereo alsoo beeno sento too theo Centralo Forensico Scienceo Laboratoryo (CFSL)o foro decipheringo theo datao ono

20.2.07oandoseveraloremindersohaveobeenosentoforo obtainingotheoreports,obutotillodateosameocouldonotobeo received.oItoisopertinentotoomentionothatoaoletterofromo theoendoofoCFSLohasobeenoreceivedobyoNCB,owhereino theyoinformedothatoinoaoshortotimeoitoisonotopossibleo toosendotheoreport.o

6.oThat,oconsideringotheoexigenciesoofotheoreportoofo CFSLo ino provingo theo caseo againsto theo accusedo persono theo prosecutiono haso too prayo foro furthero extensionoofotime.o

7.oThat,oasoperotheoprovisionoofoSectiono36AoClauseo

(4)o provisoo theo prosecutiono iso submittingo thiso petitionoforoextensionoofotimeoforofiling.oComplainto aftero completingo theo investigationo acceptingo theo reporto ofo theo prosecutiono kepto ino theo caseo fileo submittedoherewithoshowingothatotheodetentionoofotheo aforesaidoaccusedoisofurtheronecessary. Inotheoabovementionedocircumstances,oitoisoherebyo prayedobeforeoyouroHonourothat,o Aofurtheroperiodoofo6omonthsomayokindlyobeogivenoforo theo completiono ofo investigationo ando filingo ofo complaint.o Ando theo accusedo persono mayo beo remandedoinojudicialocustodyoforofurtheroperiod.o Andoforothisoactoofokindness,otheopetitioneroasoisodutyo boundoshalloeveropray.o

14.oAobareoperusaloofothisoapplicationoshowsothatoitohaso beenofiledobyotheoinvestigatingoofficerooforespondentoNo.1o andodoesonotoindicateoevenoremotelyoanyoapplicationoofo mindoonotheopartoofotheopublicoprosecutor.oItofurtherodoeso notoindicateotheoprogressoofotheoinvestigation,onorotheo compellingo reasonso whicho requiredo ano extensiono ofo custodyobeyondo180odays.oThisoapplicationowasoallowedo byotheoSpecialoJudgeoono2ndoAugust,o2007oi.e.oonotheodayo onowhichoitowasofiledowhichoalsoorevealsothatonoonoticeo hadobeeno issuedo too theo accusedo ando heowaso noto eveno presentoinoCourtoonothatoday.o

15.oTheosecondoapplicationodatedo30thoJanuary,o2008oiso eveno moreo incomprehensible.o Weo reproduceo theo sameo hereinbelowo:o INo THEo COURTo OFo LD.JUDGE-SPECIALo COURTo NDPSoACToKOLKATAoAToBARASAToNORTHo24oPGSo oo CASEoNO.N-23/2007o UnionoofoIndiao oo Versuso SanjayoKediao..AccusedoPersono Theohumbleopetitionoonobehalfoofotheoprosecution.o MOSToRESPECTFULLYoSTATES;o

1.oThatotodayoisotheodateofixedoforosubmissionoofo theocomplaint.o

2.oThatoasotheoprosecutionoisonotoinoaopositionotoo submito theo complainto todayo henceo prayso foro furthero timeo foro theo same.o Undero theo aboveo circumstancesoitoisoprayedothatoaoshortodateomayo kindlyoallowedoforotheosameoforoendsoofojusticeo oo o ANDo Foro thiso acto ofo kindnesso shallo evero prayo youro petitioneroasoisodutyoshalloeveropray."o Aobareoperusaloofothisounsignedoapplicationowouldo revealothatoitodoesonotoevenoremotelyosatisfyotheo testso laido downo ino Vishnuo Thakur'so case.o Theo SpecialoJudgeoallowedothisoapplicationoasowelloono theodayoitowasofiledobyoaocrypticoorderoandowithouto noticeotootheoaccusedoinotheofollowingotermso:o "Accd.oSanjayoKediaoisoproducedofromoJ/C.oAccd.o Filedo ao vakalatnama.o Prosecutoro fileso Hazira.o Prosecutionoalsoofilesoaopetitionoprayingoforotime.o Consideredo prayero foro timeo iso allowedo too

13.2.2008o foro productiono ofo theo accd&o reporto fromoI.O."o

16.oWeoare,otherefore,oofotheoopinionothatotheoextensionso grantedo too theo investigatingo departmento undero theo provisootooSectiono36Ao(4)odidonotosatisfyotheoconditionso laido downo thereino ando botho theo extensions,o therefore,o beingocontraryotoolaw,omustobeostruckodownoaccordingly. [Emphasisosupplied]o o o ThisoCourtoinoJoginderoSingh,o(supra)oheldoasounder:-o "AoPublicoProsecutoroisoanoimportantoofficeroofotheoStateo Governmento ando iso appointedo byo theo Stateo undero theo Codeo ofo Criminalo Procedure.o Heo iso ano independento statutoryoauthority.oTheoPublicoProsecutoroisoexpectedotoo independentlyo applyo hiso mindo too theo requesto ofo theo investigatingoagencyobeforeosubmittingoaoreportotootheo court for investigation. He is not merely a post office or a forwarding agency. A Public Prosecutor may or may not agree with the reasons given by the investigating officer for seeking extension of time and may find that the investigation had not progressed in the proper manner o that there has been unnecessary, deliberate or avoidable delay in completing the investigation. Thus, for seeking extension of time, the Public Prosecutor after an independent application of mind to the request of the investigating agency, is required to make a report to the court indicating therein the progress of the investigation and disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation. The Public Prosecutor may attach the request of the investigating officer alongwith his request on application and report, but his report must disclose on the face of it, that he has applied his mind and was satisfied with the progress of the investigation and considered grant of further time to complete the investigation. The report of the Public Prosecutor, therefore, is not merely a formality but a very vital report because the consequence of its acceptance affects the liberty of an accused and it must, therefore, strictly comply with the requirements of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The contents of the report to be submitted by the Public Prosecutor, after proper application of his mind, are designed to assist the court to independently decide whether or not extension should be granted in a given case. Keeping in view the consequences of the grant of extension i.e. keeping an accused in further custody, the court must be satisfied for the justification, from the report of the Public Prosecutor, to grant extension of time to complete the investigation. In the case in hand, the application for extension signed by the Investigating Officer cannot be construed as a report of the Public Prosecutor as envisaged in Proviso to sub section (4) of Section 36A of the NDPS Act for the reason that Public Prosecutor had only appended his signatures at the bottom of the page, that too, without even making an endorsement that he had perused the grounds and that, he was satisfied about the progress of investigation and reasons set out for extension of time to complete the investigation. Further, the report did not disclose the progress of investigation. It is a settle proposition of law that report is not a mere formality but requires due application of mind as to the ground for delay in filing challan and the reasons for further detention of accused. In the considered view of this Court, the application/report filed by the prosecution did not meet the aforesaid requirements envisaged in Proviso to Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. It can safely be held that the application for seeking extension of time was nothing but a transmission of request of an Investigating Officer. The report did not reflect the steps taken for obtaining FSL report during the period of first 180 days." [Emphasis supplied] In Rohtash @ Raju(supra) held as under:- oJAsoperoprosecution$otheopresentocaseoisowithore!ar otoo reco*eryoofoco""ercialo8uantityoofocontraban oan otheo petitionerowasosentotoocusto yoono'3.;%.';'1.o<heopoliceo presentedochallanoagainstotheopetitioneroono17.03.2022,o withoutoFSLoreport.oAlongowithotheochallanoSHOoofotheo concernedopoliceostationofiledoanoapplicationo(Annx.oP-2)ounderoSectiono36A(4)oNDPSoActoseekingoextensionoofo time.oAdmittedly,otheosaidoapplicationowasonotoforwardedo byo theo publico prosecutoro oro additionalo publico prosecutor.oTheolaworequiresothatosuchoanoapplicationo shouldobeosupportedobyoaoreportoofopublicoprosecutor,o whicho indicateso theo progresso ofo theo investigationo ando furtherospecifyotheocompellingoreasonsoforoseekingotheo detentionoofotheoaccusedobeyondotheoperiodoofo180odays.o Ino thiso contexto referenceo beo madeo too Sanjayo Kumaro Kediao Vs.o Narcoticso Controlo Bureauo (2009)o 17o SCCo

631.o Ino theo caseo ino hando noo sucho reporto ofo publico prosecutorowasofiledoalongowithotheoapplicationomovedo undero Sectiono36A(4)o ofo NDPSoAct.o So,o theoaforesaido requestoforoextensionoofotimeomadeobyotheoprosecutiono agencyowasonotoinoaccordanceowitholaw.oThus,otheoordero datedo 31.03.2022,o Annexureo P-1,o passedo byo theo trialo Courtoisonotosustainableoinotheoeyesoofolaw.oo oTheoreportoofotheoFSLogoesotootheorootoofotheocaseoandoiso ao materialo documento ando aso such,o filingo ofo challano withouto theo sameo iso noto too beo treatedo aso completeo challan,oasohasobeenoheldobyotheocoordinateoBenchoofo thisoCourtoinoJagvinderoSinghocaseo(supra)oandoAjaibo Singh'socaseo(supra).oTheosimilaroviewohasobeenotakenobyo theocoordinateoBenchoofothisoCourtoinoCriminaloRevisiono No.1314oofo2021,oJoginderoSinghoVs.oStateoofoHaryana,o decidedoono11.02.2022.oEvenotheoHon'bleoApexoCourtoino SLPo(Criminal)oNo.8164-8166/2021oMohammadoArbazo ando otherso Vs.o Stateo ofo NCTo ando Delhi,o alsoo grantedo reliefotootheoaccused,ounderotheosimilarocircumstances.oo o7no theo li!hto ofo theo abo*e$o theo i"pu!ne o or ero ate o '(.;3.';''o re2ectin!o efaulto bailo too theo petitionero iso herebyosetoasi eoan oheoisoor ere otoobeorelease oono efaulto bailo ono furnishin!o re8uisiteo bailo bon so too theo satisfactiono ofo concerne o trialo CourtCSpecialo /u !eo

(Auty).Lo o o "hiso&ourtoinotheocaseoofoDhruvoKumaro@oAloko&otherso 'supra(,oheldoasounder:)o "11. A perusal of the law quoted hereinabove would show that mere filing of an application for extension does not ipso facto empowerthe Court to extend the stipulated period for filing the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. A perusal of the application does not show any application of mind on the part of the Public Prosecutor as to why he feels that the period to present the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. ought to be extended. In fact, he has acted like a post office or a forwarding agency. A Public Prosecutor is an important officer of the State Government and independent statutory authority. He is expected to independently applies his mind to the request of the Investigating Agency before submitting a report to the Court as to why extension of time for completion of investigation is sought and that he was satisfied as to the progress of the investigation. He is not merely a post office or a forwarding agency. Quite to the contrary, a Public Prosecutor may or may not agree with the reasons assigned by the Investigating Officer. He may also come to the conclusion that there has been unnecessary, deliberate or avoidable delay in the completion of the investigation. Therefore, for seeking extension of time the Public Prosecutor, after an independent application of mind to the request of the Investigating Agency is required to make a report to the Court indicating therein the progress of the investigation and disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the Investigating Agency to complete investigation. In fact, the report of the Public Prosecutor is not an empty formality but a vital report because the consequences of its acceptances affects the liberty of an accused and it must, therefore, strictly comply with the requirements of Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act. In the instant case, a perusal of Annexure P-2 i.e. the application seeking extension of the period for presenting challan would show that the Public Prosecutor simply forwarded the same without any independent application of mind.

¶12Keeping in view the aforementioned discussion, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the period for completion of investigation has been extended by 90 days stands quashed.o o 'e%phasisosupplied(o o "heo on#$leoSupre%eo&ourtoinotheocaseoofoHitendraoVishnuo Thakuro'supra(oheldoasounder:)o J''.o4eo"ay$oatothisosta!e$oalsooonoaoplainorea in!oofo clauseo(bb)oofosub-sectiono(oofoSectiono';opointooutothato theo le!islatureo haso pro*i e o foro see-in!o e.tensiono ofo ti"eoforoco"pletionoofoin*esti!ationoonoaoreportoofotheo publico prosecutor.o <heo le!islatureo i o noto purposelyo lea*eo ito too ano 7n*esti!atin!o Officero too "a-eo ano applicationoforosee-in!oe.tensionoofoti"eofro"otheocourt.o Thisoprovisionoisoinotuneowithotheolegislativeointentotoo haveotheoinvestigationsocompletedoexpeditiouslyoandonoto tooallowoanoaccusedotoobeokeptoinocontinuedodetentiono duringo unnecessaryo prolongedo investigationo ato theo whimso ofo theo police.o Theo legislatureo expectso thato theo investigationo musto beo completedo witho utmosto promptitudeo buto whereo ito becomeso necessaryo too seeko someomoreotimeoforocompletionoofotheoinvestigation,otheo investigatingoagencyomustosubmitoitselfotootheoscrutinyoofo theoPublicoProsecutoroinotheofirstoinstanceoandosatisfyo himoaboutotheoprogressoonotheoinvestigationoandofurnisho reasonso foro seekingo furthero custodyo ofo ano accused.o Ao PublicoProsecutoroisoanoimportantoofficeroofotheoStateo Govt.oandoisoappointedobyotheoStateounderotheoCodeoofo CriminaloProcedure.oHeoisonotoaopartoofotheoinvestigatingo agency.oHeoisoanoindependentostatutoryoauthority.oTheo PublicoProsecutoroisoexpectedotooindependentlyoapplyohiso mindotootheorequestoofotheoinvestigatingoagencyobeforeo submittingoaoreportotootheocourtoforoextensionoofotimeo witho ao viewo too enableo theo investigatingo agencyo too completeotheoinvestigation.oHeoisonotomerelyoaopostoofficeo oroao forwardingo agency.o Ao Publico Prosecutoromayooro mayo noto agreeo witho theo reasonso giveno byo theo investigatingoofficeroforoseekingoextensionoofotimeoando mayofindothatotheoinvestigationohadonotoprogressedoinotheo propero mannero oro thato thereo haso beeno unnecessary,o deliberateo oro avoidableo delayo ino completingo theo investigation.o Ino thato event,o heo mayo noto submito anyo reportotootheocourtounderoclauseo(bb)otooseekoextensionoofo time.oThusoforoseekingoextensionoofotimeounderoclauseo

(bb)o theo Publico Prosecutoro aftero ano independento applicationo ofo hiso mindo too theo requesto ofo theo investigatingoagency,oisorequiredotoomakeoaoreportotootheo DesignatedoCourtoindicatingothereinotheoprogressoofotheo investigationoandodisclosingojustificationoforokeepingotheo accusedoinofurtherocustodyotooenableotheoinvestigatingo agencyo too completeo theo investigation.o Theo Publico Prosecutoromayoattachotheorequestoofotheoinvestigatingo officeroalongwithohisorequestooroapplicationoandoreport,o buto hiso report,o ano envisagedo undero clauseo (bb),o musto discloseoonotheofaceoofoit,othatoheohasoappliedohisomindo andowasosatisfiedowithotheoprogressoofotheoinvestigationo ando consideredo granto ofo furthero timeo too completeo theo investigationonecessary.oTheouseoofotheoexpressiono"ono theo reporto ofo theo Publico Prosecutoro indicatingo theo progressoofotheoinvestigationoandotheospecificoreasonsoforo theodetentionoofotheoaccusedobeyondotheosaidoperiod"oaso occurringo ino clauseo (bb)o ino sub-sectiono (2)o ofo Sectiono167oasoamendedobyoSectiono20(4)oareoimportanto ando indicativeoofo theo legislativeo intento noto too keepo ano accusedoinocustodyounreasonablyoandotoograntoextensiono onlyoonotheoreportoofotheoPublicoProsecutor.oTheoreporto ofo theo Publico Prosecutor,o therefore,o iso noto merelyo ao formalityo buto ao veryo vitalo reporto becauseo theo consequenceoofoitsoacceptanceoaffectsotheolibertyoofoano accusedoandoitomust,otherefore,ostrictlyocomplyowithotheo requirementsoasocontainedoinoclauseo(bb).oTheorequestoofo ano investigatingo officero foro extensiono ofo timeo iso noo substituteoforotheoreportoofotheoPublicoProsecutor.oWhereo eitheronooreportoasoisoenvisagedobyoclauseo(bb)oisofiledooro theoreportofiledobyotheoPublicoProsecutoroisonotoacceptedo byotheoDesignatedoCourt,osinceotheograntoofoextensionoofo timeo undero clauseo (bb)o iso neithero ao formalityo noro automatic,o theo necessaryo corollaryo wouldo beo thato ano accusedo wouldo beo entitledo too seeko bailo ando theo courto "shall"o releaseo himo ono bailo ifo heo furnisheso bailo aso requiredobyotheoDesignatedoCourt.oItoisonotomerelyotheo questiono ofo formo ino whicho theo requesto foro extensiono undero clauseo (bb)o iso madeo buto oneo ofo substance.o Theo contentso ofo theo reporto too beo submittedo byo theo Publico Prosecutor,o aftero propero applicationo ofo hiso mind,o areo designedo too assisto theo Designatedo Courto too independentlyodecideowhetherooronotoextensionoshouldobeo grantedo ino ao giveno case.o Keepingo ino viewo theo consequencesoofotheograntoofoextensionoi.eokeepingoano accusedoinofurtherocustody,otheoDesignatedoCourtomusto beosatisfiedoforotheojustification,ofromotheoreportoofotheo Publico Prosecutor,o too granto extensiono ofo timeo too completeotheoinvestigation.oWhereotheoDesignatedoCourto declineso too granto sucho ano extension,o theo righto too beo releasedo ono bailo ono accounto ofo theo 'default'o ofo theo prosecutiono becomeso indefeasibleo ando cannoto beo defeatedobyoreasonsootherothanothoseocontemplatedobyo sub-sectiono(4)oofoSectiono20,oasodiscussedoinotheoearliero partoofothisojudgment.oWeoareounableotooagreeowithoMr.o MadhavaoReddyoorotheoAdditionaloSolicitoroGeneraloMr.o Tulsi,othatoevenoifotheoPublicoProsecutoro'presents'otheo requesto ofo theo investigatingo officero too theo court,o oro 'forwards'otheorequestoofotheoinvestigatingoofficerotootheo court,o ito shouldo beo construedo too beo theo reporto ofo theo Publico Prosecutor.o Thereo iso noo scopeo foro sucho ao construction,owhenoweoareodealingowithotheolibertyoofoao citizen.oTheocourtsoareoexpectedotoojealouslyosafeguardo hisoliberty.oClauseo(bb)ohasotoobeoreadoandointerpretedo onoitsoplainolanguageowithoutoaddingoorosubstitutionoofo anyo expressiono ino it.o Weo haveo alreadyo dealto witho theo importanceoofotheoreportoofotheoPublicoProsecutoroando emphasisedo thato heo iso neithero ao 'posto office'o ofo theo investigatingoagencyonoroitso'forwardingoagency'obutoiso chargedowithoaostatutoryoduty.oHeomustoapplyohisomindotoo theofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheocaseoandohisoreporto mustodiscloseoonotheofaceoofoitothatoheohadoappliedohiso mindotootheotwinoconditionsocontainedoinoclauseo(bb)oofo sub-sectiono (4)o ofo Sectiono20.o Since,o theo lawo requireso himotoosubmitotheoreportoasoenvisagedobyotheosection,oheo mustoactoinotheomanneroasoprovidedobyotheoSectionoandoino noootheromanner.oAoDesignatedoCourtowhichoover-lookso andoignoresotheorequirementsoofoaovalidoreportofailsoino theo performanceo ofo oneo ofo itso essentialo dutieso ando rendersoitsoorderounderoclauseo(bb)ovulnerable.oWhethero theoPublicoProsecutorolabelohisoreportoasoaoreportooroaso ano applicationo foro extension,o wouldo noto beo ofo mucho consequenceosoolongoasoitodemonstratesoonotheofactoofoit,o thatoheohasoappliedohisomindoandoisosatisfiedowithotheo progresso ofo theo investigationo ando genuinenesso ofo theo reasonso foro granto ofo extensiono too keepo ano accusedo ino furthero custodyo aso envisagedo byo clauseo (bb)o (supra).o Eveno theo mereo reproductiono ofo theo applicationo oro requesto ofo theo investigatingo officero byo theo Publico Prosecutoroinohisoreport,owithoutodemonstrationoofotheo applicationoofomindoandorecordingohisoownosatisfaction,o wouldo noto rendero hiso reporto aso theo oneo envisagedo byo clauseo(bb)oandoitowouldonotobeoaoproperoreportotooseeko extensiono ofo time.o Ino theo absenceo ofo ano appropriateo reportotheoDesignatedoCourtowouldohaveonoojurisdictiono too denyo too ano accusedo hiso indefeasibleo righto too beo releasedo ono bailo ono accounto ofo theo defaulto ofo theo prosecutionotoofileotheochallanowithinotheoprescribedotimeo ifoanoaccusedoseeksoandoisopreparedotoofurnishotheobailo boundsoasodirectedobyotheocourt.oMoreover,onooextensiono canobeograntedotookeepoanoaccusedoinocustodyobeyondotheo prescribedoperiodoexceptotooenableotheoinvestigationotoo beocompletedoandoasoalreadyostatedobeforeoanyoextensiono isograntedounderoclauseo(bb),otheoaccusedomustobeoputoono noticeoandopermittedotoohaveohisosayosooasotoobeoableotoo objectotootheograntoofoextension."o [Emphasis supplied]

¶10For a proper appreciation of the facts, a tabulated chart of the relevant dates is reproduced hereinbelow:- -.o Dateoofo./01arresto -2.34.4344o Anne5ureoP)-o

4.o Applicationoforoe5tensiono 34.36.4344o Anne5ureoP)7o

2.o -63oDa!soco%pletionoo --.36.4344o ))o

8.o Applicationo91so-7:'4(o&r.P.&.o 23.36.4344o Anne5ureoP)2o ;.o <rderowhere$!oe5tensionoofo=3o 34.36.4344o /%pugnedoordero da!sogranted.o o

7.o <rderoofodis%issaloofo$ailo 2-.36.4344o Anne5ureoP)8.o applicationo91so-7:o'4(o &r.P.&.(.o :.o &hallanopresentedoo 3;.--.4344o ))o

¶11A perusal of the legal position as enumerated hereinabove would show that mere filing of an application for extension does not ipso facto empowerthe Court to extend the stipulated period for filing the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. A perusal of the application does not show any application of mind on the part of the Public Prosecutor as to why he feels that the period to present the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. ought to be extended. In fact, he has acted like a post office or a forwarding agency. A Public Prosecutor is an important officer of the State Government and independent statutory authority. He is expected to independently applies his mind to the request of the Investigating Agency before submitting a report to the Court as to why extension of time for completion of investigation is sought and that he was satisfied as to the progress of the investigation. He is not merely a post office or a forwarding agency. Quite to the contrary, a Public Prosecutor may or may not agree with the reasons assigned by the Investigating Officer. He may also come to the conclusion that there has been unnecessary, deliberate or avoidable delay in the completion of the investigation. Therefore, for seeking extension of time, the Public Prosecutor, after an independent application of mind to the request of the Investigating Agency is required to make a report to the Court indicating therein the progress of the investigation and disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the Investigating Agency to complete investigation. In fact, the report of the Public Prosecutor is not an empty formality but a vital report because the consequences of its acceptances affects the liberty of an accused and it must, therefore, strictly comply with the requirements of Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act. In the instant case, a perusal of Annexure P-6 i.e. the application seeking extension of the period for presenting challan would show that the Public Prosecutor simply forwarded the same without any independent application of mind.

¶12Keeping in view the aforementioned discussion, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby the period for completion of investigation has been extended by 90 days stands quashed. o o o o o o o (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)o o o o o o o o o oJUDGEo 1 !0"!202#o o o o JITESHooooooooooWhether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/Noo Whether reportable:- Yes/No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1907-2022o(O&M) Date of decision : 16.05.2023 RAJPALo@oBILLU ... Petitioner Versus STATEoOFoHARYANAo ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:o Mr.oPardeepoSinghoPoonia,oAdvocateoando o o Mr.oPulkitoDhanda,oAdvocateoo o o forotheopetitioner.o o o o Mr.oNeerajPoswal,oAsst.oA.G.,o ar!ana.o ****