Madras High Court
Suhail Ahamed vs The State Rep. By Its on 29 January, 2025
Crl.R.C.No.2199 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 23.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.2199 of 2024
1.Suhail Ahamed
2.Mohammed Yasin
3.Raja @ Ajay ... Petitioners/Accused 2, 3 & 5
Vs.
1. The State Rep. By its
The Inspector of Police,
H-5, Thiruvottiyur Police Station,
Chennai.
(Cr.No.57 of 2024) … Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 & 442 of
BNSS, praying to call for the records and set aside the order dated
21.10.2024 of the learned Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS
Court at Chennai Cr.M.P.No.11633 of 2024 and enlarge the petitioners
on bail in C.C.No.875 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Special
Court under EC and NDPS Court at Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Padmanabhan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar (for R1 & R2)
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Amicus curiae : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/19
Crl.R.C.No.2199 of 2024
Sr. Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/19
Crl.R.C.No.2199 of 2024
ORDER
The Criminal Revision challenges the order dated 21.10.2024,
dismissing the petition in Crl.M.P.No.11633 of 2024 filed by the
petitioners, seeking default bail.
2. It is the case of the petitioners, that they were arrested for the
offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 18(b), 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS
Act @ under Sections 8(c) r/w 18(C), 22(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS
Act on 19.01.2024 and remanded on 20.01.2024; that the allegation
against the petitioners/A2, A3 and A5, is that they were found in
possession of 4.620 Kgs of Methamphetamine and 1.425 Kgs of Abin
along with two other accused; that since the respondent did not file the
final report within the statutory period of 180 days, the respondent
sought for extension and the trial Court had granted 90 days for
completion of investigation; that the respondent ought to have filed the
final report before 270 days; that the 270th day fell on 14.10.2024; that
the respondent filed the final report only on 15.10.2024; and hence the
petitioners are entitled to statutory bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The trial Court dismissed the said petition, on the ground that
the final report was filed on the 270 th day i.e., 14.10.2024 and therefore,
the right to obtain default bail was extinguished.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated his
submissions made before the trial Court and asserted that the final report
was filed only on 14.10.2024 and in support of his submission, had
pointed out to the portion of the impugned order wherein, the trial Court
had recorded the fact that the learned Public Prosecutor had stated that
the final report was filed on 15.10.2024.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) per contra
submitted that the trial Court had verified the records and found that the
final report was filed on 14.10.2024, although the learned Public
Prosecutor had mistakenly stated that the final report was filed on
15.10.2024.
6. This Court in order to ascertain the exact date on which the final
report was filed, had called for the records. The learned trial Judge had
initially sent a letter without the records confirming that the final report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was filed on 14.10.2024. However, pursuant to another order, the trial
Court had sent the copy of documents downloaded from e-filing CIS
login.
7. In the meanwhile, since it was represented by both the learned
counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side), that sometimes due to server issues, even if a particular
document is uploaded by the police on a particular day, the
acknowledgement is received much later, this Court to understand the
working of e-filing system and also to clarify the legal issues involved,
appointed Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned senior counsel, as an
Amicus Curiae.
8. (a) Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned senior counsel,
submitted that the period of detention for the purpose of computing the
statutory period prescribed under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. or
Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act, should be computed from the date of
detention authorised by the Magistrate and not from the date of arrest.
He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaganti
Satyanarayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(1986) 3 SCC 141 and in Enforcement Directorate, vs. Kapil
Wadhawan and another, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 147.
(b) The learned senior counsel on facts therefore submitted that the
date of remand in this case was 20.01.2024 and hence, the 270 th day fell
on 15.10.2024 and not on 14.10.2024 and produced a tabular column,
which reads as follows:
Sl.No. Date & Month Days
1 20.01.2024 to 31.01.2024 12
2 01.02.2024 to 29.02.2024 29
3 01.03.2024 to 31.03.2024 31
4 01.04.2024 to 30.04.2024 30
5 01.05.2024 to 31.05.2024 31
6 01.06.2024 to 30.06.2024 30
7 01.07.2024 to 31.07.2024 31
8 01.08.2024 to 31.08.2024 31
9 01.09.2024 to 30.09.2024 30
10 01.10.2024 to 14.10.2024 14
(c) The learned senior counsel also submitted that the records
reveal that the final report was filed on 14.10.2024 after rectification of
certain defects pointed out by the Registry of the trial Court.
9. This Court, verified the records and also interacted with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
police personnel attached to the respondent police to understand the
procedure followed by them while uploading the final report along with
the documents. This Court also sought the assistance of the officials of
this Court in charge of IT-cum-Statistics.
10. On perusal of the record, there is no doubt that the final report
was filed on 14.10.2024 and the 270th day falls on 15.10.2024.
Therefore, the final report was filed well within the statutory limit. The
petitioners are hence not entitled to statutory bail.
11. The petitioners pointed out that in the screenshot of the
computer maintained by the police and produced before this Court, it is
shown that though the documents dated 15.07.2024 were submitted and
approved, the final report dated 14.10.2024 is shown as submitted, but
the CIS status does not show that it is approved. The scanned copy is
reproduced hereunder for better understanding:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. From the record sent by the trial Court, the final report is
shown as filed on 14.10.2024 and there is another column, which shows
that it was consumed on 21.01.2025.
13. Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned senior counsel
pointed out the rules circulated by the e-Committee of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, which clarify as to what is meant by 'consumed'.
Rule 4.4 of the said rules reads as follows:
“4.4 . Consume Data option under CIS 3.0: The consume data
option under eFiling is provided under the CIS 3.0 for consuming the
efiled cases from the online portal. There is no direct eFiling of cases
into the CIS, because if the registered users are allowed to make direct
filing into CIS software it may affect the security and the speed of the
software. Hence at present a separate eFiling portal is allocated
whereby registered user make the eFiling and it is consumed into CIS
under this consume data -eFiling option Under CIS 3.0 Consume data
option is provided
E-Filing/E-Fling View Document PDE Pleaded Guilty Fir Data N-Step RTO
which is a visionary option proposed for consuming datas under six heads.
14. In Rule 1.27 of the above Rules, it is stated as follows:
“1.27 eFiling module: The much awaited e-filing model has been
rolled out for the district judiciary of our country. The e-filing will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consist of two major stages
• Registered users i.e. advocate/ party in person filing their
digital case content through the e-filing web portal
• And after the digital case content is scrutinized with
option for return, resubmit and accepted
• The digital case content on being accepted now becomes
ready for consuming under CIS 3.0 option as shown in the
screenshot.
• When the e filed cases is consumed through CIS 3.0 it is
verified then rejected or accepted.
• Once it is accepted the filing number is generated
successfully under CIS 3.0 as shown in the screenshot.
• After generating eFiling number it goes through the usual
procedure of objection, rejection, scrutiny, and registration
of FORA as in built in CIS 3.0.
15. It appears that there is a delay in the Registry of the trial Court
to record the fact that the documents were consumed. The documents
were shown as consumed only after this Court had passed various orders
seeking clarification. This delay or lapse has to be rectified at the
Registry level. Be that as it may. But merely because the document is
shown as consumed on 20.01.2025, it cannot be said that the final report
was not filed within the statutory limit.
16. In order to obtain further clarification, this Court sought the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
assistance of the officials in the Registry of this Court and they had given
another tabular column, which reveals that the final report was uploaded
on 14.10.2024 at about 18.55 hours and created on the same day at 18.57
hours. According to the officials, “created” means “submitted” and it
was consumed on the next day on 15.10.2024 at 9.56 hours and was
modified on 21.01.2025 at 11.00 hours. The scanned copy is reproduced
hereunder for better understanding.
17. This Court in Crl.O.P.No.901 of 2024, while dealing with the
similar situation where there was a mismatch in the date of filing shown
in the official website, and the actual date of filing, had elaborately
considered all the judgments and vide order dated 01.02.2024 has held as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“19. The above two judgements that were relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner will not strictly apply to the facts of
the present case. In the instant case, the e-filing platform is available to
the prosecution to file the final report. This filing is officially
recognized to be the date of filing of the final report. It is nobody's case
that an incomplete final report was filed on 13.11.2023. It must also be
noted that 13.11.2023 was a working day since it was Monday and
therefore, the final report along with the materials had reached the e-
filing portal of the Special Court. In this digital era, it is too late in the
day to claim that the e-filing of the final report cannot be construed as
the date of filing and it is only the physical availability of papers that
should be construed as the actual date of filing. If this interpretation is
given, all the efforts that are being taken by the Apex Court and the
other High Courts in India to make the entire legal proceedings digital,
will be defeated.”
Therefore, whatever be the reason for the delay in consuming the data at
the Registry level, i.e., a technical issue or a human error, the respondent
cannot be faulted, since they have established in this case that the final
report was uploaded and submitted on 14.10.2024.
18. We may also note that in the future, the Registry must also
avoid such lapses that have been pointed out above with regard to the
date of consumption of the data and also to process the final report and
number them if it is in order, as expeditiously as possible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19. The learned senior counsel also pointed out the rules framed by
this Court called the Madras High Court E-Filing Rules, 2020 and
submitted that as per Rule 12.2, the E-Filing through designated counters
will be permissible upto 16.00 hours on any court working day and if any
filing of the final report thereafter is to be construed that the final report
was filed on the next day. Rule 12 of the said rules reads as follows:
“12. Computation of Time:
12.1. Wherever limitation/time limits apply, it will be the
responsibility of the party concerned to ensure that the filing is carried out
well before the cut-off date and time. The date of e-filing will be taken as
that date when the Action is electronically received in the Registry within
the prescribed time on any working day. For computing the time at which
e-filing is made, Indian Standard Time (IST) as in the Registry Portal will
apply.
12.2. E-filing through Designated Counters will be permissible up
to 16.00 hours on any court working day. On-line e-filing carried out after
midnight, i.e. 24.00 hours of the day, will be treated as the date which
follows the actual fi ling date provided it is a court working day. Actions
filed on a day declared as gazetted holiday or on a day when the court is
closed, will be regarded as having been filed on the next working day. For
the computation of limitation, on-line e-filing shall be subject to the same
legal regime as applicable to physical filing, save and except as provided
herein above.
12.3. The facility for on-line e-filing through the web portal shall be
available during all twenty four hours of each day, subject to breakdown,
server downtime, system maintenance or such other exigencies. Where on-
line e-filing is not possible for any of the reasons set out above, parties can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
either approach the Designated Counters for e-filing during court hours on
working days or take recourse to physical filing along with soft copies in
CD or pen drive.
12.4. Provisions for limitation governing on-line e-filing will be the
same as those applicable to physical filing. The period of limitation for
such actions shall commence from the date when e-filing is made as per
the procedure prescribed in these Rules.”
20. There is no difficulty in understanding the above Rule, which
stipulates that though online E-Filing could be done during all the
twenty-four hours of the day, the E-Filing through designated counters
will be permitted only upto 16.00 hours. It is also seen that if the E-
Filing is not done on a working day for the purpose of computing of
limitation, it would be treated as filed on the next working day.
However, the said rules have to be read along with Rule 25 of the
Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, which though refers to the physical
filing, has permitted the Magistrates to accept the final reports even
beyond the working hours of the Court or even on a holiday. The
relevant rule reads as follows:
“25. Filing of final report by police and complaint by other
investigation agencies. (1) Final report by police and complaint by
other investigation agencies shall normally be received on all working
days at fixed hours by the Court having jurisdiction to receive them.
On such receipt, the same shall be entered in the “Register of Papers
Received” in Administrative Form No.60 and in the First Information
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Report Register in Administrative Form No.18 (Criminal Register
No.18). In cases, where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Judge or
Magistrate that the accused in detention in the case would become
entitled to be released on compulsory bail under proviso to section 167
of the Code if the final report or complaint is not filed immediately, the
Judge or Magistrate, as the case may be, shall receive the final report or
complaint even on a holiday or beyond the working hours of the
Court.”
21. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the general Rule
framed by the High Courts that if a document is filed on a holiday, it
should be construed as if it is filed on the next working day would not be
applicable to a final report filed on a holiday. That apart, the final report
could be filed before 12 midnight in order to claim that it was filed on a
particular date.
22. Yet another aspect which requires clarification is that the
petitioners had sought to compute the statutory period from the date of
arrest. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaganti
Satyanarayana's case [cited supra], which was reiterated in Kapil
Wadhawan's case [cited supra], had held that the period of detention has
to be computed from the date of detention authorised by the Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and not from the date of arrest. The relevant portion in Chaganti
Satyanarayana's case [cited supra] reads as follows:
“20. The words used in proviso (a) are "no Magistrate shall
authorise the detention of the accused person in custody", "under
this paragraph", "for a total period exceeding i.e. 90 days/60 days".
Detention can be authorised by the Magistrate only from the time
the order of remand is passed. The earlier period when the accused
is in the custody of a police officer in exercise of his powers under
Section 57 cannot constitute detention pursuant to an authorisation
issued by the Magistrate. It, therefore, stands to reason that the
total period of 90 days or 60 days can begin to run only from the
date of order of remand.”
23. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case, is
dismissed.
24. This Court places its appreciation for the able assistance
rendered by Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned senior counsel.
29.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Court,
Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police,
H-5, Thiruvottiyur Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
Pre-delivery order in
29.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
