Madras High Court
Gunse Sathiyavathi vs The State on 12 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
Gunse Sathiyavathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State, Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
N-1, Royapuram Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondent
(Crime No.37 of 2022)
This Criminal Revision case has been filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 19.07.2022 in
M.P.No.3311 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Court under EC & NDPS Act,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Angamuthu
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Government Pleader
******
Page No.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
ORDER
The present revision has been filed to challenge the order dated
19.07.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, whereby,
application moved by the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. r/w 36 (A) of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short "NDPS Act") has been
dismissed.
2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts, which are relevant
for the purpose of present revision is that the FIR of the present case was
lodged on 14.01.2022 against the revision petitioner under Sections 8(c) r/w 20
(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act. Pursuant to the FIR, the petitioner was
arrested on 14.01.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody.
3. While investigation was pending, the prosecution could not file the
charge sheet within the statutory period and the respondent-Police sought
extension of time by filing Crl.M.P.No.3306 of 2022 before the learned Special
Court for extension of time for filing charge sheet. In the said petition, the
learned Special Judge, after issuing notice to all the accused, including the
present petitioner, and considering the entire materials, has satisfied with the
reason sought and granted for extension of time on 11.08.2022.
Page No.2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
4. Before expiry of extended time, the petitioner filed a bail application
in Crl.M.P.No.3311 of 2022 invoking Sections 167(2) of Cr.P.C read with 36(A) of
NDPS Act before the learned Special Court under EC & NDPS Act. The
learned Principal Special Judge, dismissed the petition, by order dated
19.07.2022, observing that "on 08.07.2022, i.e, 176th day, the learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted a report and prayed time for extension of statutory
period of 60 more days for further investigation under Section 36A(4) of NDPS
Act and the same was permitted by this Court on the day itself and therefore,
the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
5. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by
way of this Revision.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the relying
upon sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C and Section 36A(4) of the
NDPS Act, would contend that the prosecuting agency is bound to file the
charge sheet within the period of 180 days and if the charge sheet is not filed
within the statutory period, the accused persons would be entitled to statutory
bail. He would further submit that extension of time is not automatic, while
seeking extension of time, the prosecution agency should have a bona-fide
Page No.3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
reason and unless a valid reason is assigned, the trial Court cannot grant for
extension of filing the charge sheet. Therefore, the order of the dismissal
passed by the learned Special Judge has to be set aside and the petitioner has
to be enlarged on bail. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has
placed the reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat [2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 794] and an order of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1313 of 2022, dated
08.09.2022.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that when the
respondent police approached the trial Court for extension of time by invoking
the provision under Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act, notice was served to all
the accused, including the petitioner herein. After considering the entire
materials, the learned Special Judge granted extension of time. The cause of
action arisen between the two States and investigation also likely to be
transferred to the other wing of the investigation, the learned Special Judge on
being satisfied with the reasons given by the prosecution, granted the extension
of time. Even then, after getting extension of time, within 10 days, the
prosecution has filed the charge sheet, and therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to get the benefit under Section 167 Cr.P.C. and the learned Special
Page No.4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
Judge, upon consideration of the entire materials, dismissed the petition in
Crl.M.P.No.3311 of 2022, which does not warrants interference of this Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
9. It is not in dispute that the prosecution agency did not file charge
sheet within the statutory period. It is also not in dispute that before expiry of
statutory period of 180 days, on the 176th day i.e., on 08.07.2022, the
prosecution agency by submitting a report, has approached the trial Court for
extension of statutory period for a further period of 60 days for further
investigation under Section 36A(4) of NDPS Acts, and the same was permitted
by the trial Court on that date itself. By referring the said fact, the trial Court,
dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, seeking mandatory bail in the
order dated 19.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3311 of 2022.
10. There is no disagreement with the propositions laid down in the
judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the same are
distinguishable on facts.
Page No.5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
(i) In Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat
[2022 LiveLaw (SC) 794], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere
formality, the trial Court cannot grant extension of time of statutory period and
unless there is a valid reason, the extension cannot be granted. In the said
case, admittedly, no notice was ordered on the accused before granting
extension of time, whereas in this case, the extension order passed by the
Special Court would show that before granting extension of time, notice was
issued to all the accused, including the revision petitioner. Therefore, the said
decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to
the present case.
(ii) In the second referred case, in Crl.R.C.No.1313 of 2022, the sample
itself was forwarded to the Forensic Department only after completion of
statutory period by the prosecution, and therefore, this Court set-aside the
petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the
mandatory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. However, in the case on hand,
before expiry of the statutory period, the prosecution has approached the trial
Court and the trial Court has also considered the same by granting extension.
Page No.6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
11. Further, this Revision arises out of the order of dismissal passed by
the learned Principal Special Judge in the statutory bail filed by the petitioner
under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.VC. r/w 36 (A) of NDPS Act, and the petitioner
without challenging the grant of extension order, despite the fact that notice
was served on him, he cannot say that extension granted by the trial Court is
illegal.
12. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the order of the
learned Principal Special Judge cannot be found fault with and the petitioner is
not entitled to be enlarged on statutory bail.
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of
merits. However, it is open to the petitioner for filing regular bail application.
12.10.2022
Speaking Order
Index : Yes.
rns
Page No.7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
To
1. The Principal Court under EC & NDPS Act,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
N-1, Royapuram Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
Page No.8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
rns
Crl.R.C.No.1395 of 2022
12.10.2022
Page No.9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
