The Single Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde while dealing with applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash and set aside the order passed by the Special Court of Sessions, in exercise of powers under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for short), extending the period to complete investigation by 180 days, held that since the Prosecution has indicated and disclosed the progress of investigation and justified for keeping the accused in further custody that is beyond 180 days to enable them to complete the investigation, it cannot be said that the special prosecutor has not applied his mind and was not satisfied with the progress of investigation and genuineness of a reason and grounds for seeking extension of time to complete the investigation.
Facts
A large syndicate of persons from various streams of life, were involved in right from procuring the raw material; manufacturing the prohibited drugs; selling the drugs to the Foreign National across the State; purchasing the properties from the proceeds of crime; parking of ill-gotten money in foreign land through Hawala. On a tip off, the investigating agency intercepted a car on the Chakan Shikrapur Road, Pune. Five persons were occupying the car; three out of them were sitting on back seat and each had a bag on their laps. Upon searching the bags, occupants of the car, were found in possession of 20KG Mephedrone (MD) i.e., commercial quantity worth Rs. 20 Crores and Cash Rs. 23100/.
Much before the time was over, Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS Act, seeking extension of time of 180 days, to complete the investigation.
Procedural History
On 30th March 2021, learned Judge extended period to complete the investigation in crime in question by 180 days, having found that report was indicating progress in the investigation and disclosing and/or justifying the reasons for keeping accused in further custody beyond 180 days to enable to complete the investigation. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Applicants-Accused assailed this order.
Contentions made
It is Applicants’ case that Prosecution ought to have disclosed, nature and kind of investigation remained to be carried out as against each Applicant. According to the Petitioner, the extension defeats the object of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. It was argued, since Prosecution has recorded the statements of 42 witnesses; collected the CDRs; recovered the commercial quantity of the contraband, nothing more remained to be investigated. Applicants therefore argued that reasons put forth for seeking time for completing the investigation is completely farcical and clearly portrays unreasoned approach of the investigating agency. On these grounds, Applicants seeked to quash the impugned order and press the consequential reliefs.
Learned Prosecution on the other hand supported the impugned order and would rely on affidavit-in reply filed by the Officer in each application and justified the application moved under Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS Act.
Observations of the Court
The Bench opined those conspiracies are secretly planned and direct evidence is therefore difficult to produce and therefore in almost all cases, conspiracy is to be inferred from the circumstance pointing out one and only one hypothesis of the existence of conspiracy to commit any unlawful or illegal act. But the prosecution brought out material against them to infer that they all colluded, planned and then ventured to manufacture the prohibited drugs and sale the same for the consideration. It observed that:
“Thus..in my view, the Prosecution has indicated and disclosed the progress of investigation and justified for keeping the accused in further custody that is beyond 180 days to enable them to complete the investigation. As such it cannot be said that the special prosecutor has not applied his mind and was not satisfied with the progress of investigation and genuineness of a reason and grounds for seeking extension of time to complete the investigation..”
Judgment
The bench, while declining to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Special Court, rejected the applications and petitions.
Case Name: Kuldeep Suresh Indalkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: Criminal Application (APL) No. 489 / 2021
Bench: Justice Sandeep K. Shinde
Decided on: 4th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
