Madras High Court
Krishnakumari vs The Union Of India on 3 March, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.No.141 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 04.02.2025
Orders Pronounced on : 03.03.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.141 of 2025
--
1.Krishnakumari
2.Kasilingam .. Petitioners
Vs.
The Union of India
rep.by The Intelligence Officer,
NCB, Chennai Zone Unit,
Chennai -77,
RR No.37 of 2024. .. Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 read with 442 BNSS,
2023, praying to set aside the order dated 09.12.2024 as devoid of merits in
Crl.M.P.No.13778 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Special Court, EC &
NDPS Act, Chennai in R.R.No.37 of 2024 (on the file of the respondent).
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram
For Respondent : Mr.N.P.Kumar
Special Public Prosecutor for NCB
Cases
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated
09.12.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.13778 of 2024 on the file of the Principal
Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai in R.R.No.37 of 2024 on the
file of the respondent, as devoid of merits
2. The petitioners were arrayed as A4 and A6 in R.R.No.37 of 2024
on the file of the respondent-Police herein for the offences under Sections
8(c) read with 22(c), 27(A), 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for brevity].
The first petitioner-A4 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
17.06.2024 and the second petitioner-A6 was formally arrested on
25.06.2024 and produced before the Court on 26.06.2024 on P.T.Warrant
and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody on 26.06.2024.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.06.2024 at Service Road,
near Revathi Stores, Redhills, Chennai, the respondent-Police seized 1.470
kgs of Amphetamine from the accused persons viz., Madhushan-A1 and
Ajanthan-A2, who are Srilankan nationals. Based on the confession of A1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
and A2, the confession statement of Anton Sanujan-A3 was recorded and
thereafter, A1 to A3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
12.06.2024. It is further stated that based on the confession statement given
by A1 to A3, the first petitioner-A4 and A5 were served with summons on
14.06.2024 under Section 67 of NDPS Act, with a direction to appear before
the NCB office, Ayyapakkam, Chennai in connection with seizure of 1.470
kgs of Amphetamine, which came to be seized on 11.06.2024 and also
follow up seizure of drug source money amounting of Rs.1,29,04,800/- and
other foreign currencies which came to be seized on 14.06.2024 at Hawala
agent shop No.193/138, Angappa Naicken Street, Mannady, Chennai. The
accused A4 and A5 appeared and gave their voluntary statement and they
were arrested on 17.06.2024 and remanded to judicial custody. Based on the
confession statement of the first petitioner-A4, her husband the second
petitioner-A6, who was already undergoing incarceration from December
2021 for involvement in another case and who was lodged in Central Prison,
Puzhal was formally arrested on 25.06.2024 in the presence of the Jail
Authority and remanded to judicial custody on 26.06.2024. Later, based on
the information received from A5, the confession statement of Nisardeen-A7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
was recorded and he was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
18.07.2024.
4. The further case of the prosecution is that since the investigation
could not be completed within 180 days from the date of remand of the
accused persons, the investigating agency filed a petition seeking extension
of time and the same was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2024 in
Crl.M.P.No.13778 of 2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners –
A4 and A6 have filed the present revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first
petitioner-A4 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.06.2024
and the second petitioner-A6 was formally arrested on 25.06.2024 and
remanded to judicial custody on 26.06.2024. He further submitted that as
per Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act, any offence involving commercial
quantity, the investigation has to be completed within 180 days, in case, if it
is not possible to complete the investigation within the statutory period, the
Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, despite
lapse of 180 days, the respondent-Police did not file final report, instead,
they have filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.13778 of 2024 seeking further
extension of statutory period of investigation for a period of three months.
The learned Special Judge failed to consider that according to Section
36A(4) of NDPS Act the extension is not an automatic and the Court can
order for further period of extension based on the report of the public
prosecutor, indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reason
for detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days. However, in the
petition for extension, the respondent-Police herein merely narrated the
sequence of events from 11.06.2024 and 18.07.2024, but they did not
disclose about the progress of the investigation and also they did not state as
to why further detention is required for the purpose of completing the
investigation. He further submitted that only to prevent the revision
petitioners from coming out of bail under the mandatory provisions under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C./187 BNSS, the respondent-Police have filed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
petition and sought for extension of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this Court, have repeatedly held that right guaranteed under Section 167(2)
of Cr.P.C.,/187 BNSS is indefeasible, however, the learned Special Judge,
failed to follow the directions and mechanically passed the order granting
time for a further period of three months to complete the investigation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the
respondent-Police ought to have filed the petition for extension well in
advance, i.e., at least fourteen days before the expiry of the statutory period
and then the same can be entertained by the trial Court. The Public
Prosecutor's report also must specify as to why the petition for extension
could not be filed fourteen days before the statutory period. However, in the
case on hand, the respondent-Police filed the petition for extension at the
fag end of statutory period and the prosecution also not given any valid
reason for delay in filing the petition for extension. The learned Judge failed
to consider all those facts and allowed the petition and extended the period.
Since the application for extension did not satisfy the requirements in law,
the order passed by the learned Special Judge has to be set side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
8. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners
relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 27.11.2024 in
Crl.R.C.Nos.1847 of 2024 etc., batch.
9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
Police submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are grievous
in nature and that the accused are Srilankan nationals. The quantum of
contraband, which was seized by respondent-Police is commercial in nature
i.e., 1.470 kgs and have also seized a sum of Rs.1,29,04,800/- and other
foreign currency on 14.06.2024 at Hawala agent shop at No.193/138,
Angappa Naicken Street, Mannady, Chennai. Based on the confession
statement of other accused, the first petitioner-A4 was summoned and based
on the statement of first petitioner-A4, the prosecution found that the second
petitioner-A6 was also involved in the alleged commission of offence and he
was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that in the
present case most of the accused are Srilankan nationals and their net works
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
have to be traced out by the investigating agency and source of the
contraband and incriminating documents have to be collected to complete
the investigation and A6, who was already involved in other case and
undergoing incarceration, was formally arrested in the present case, which
requires detailed analysis and interrogation of various persons. He further
submitted that since investigation has to be spread to another Country and
investigation has to be conducted in detail, they could not file the charge-
sheet within 180 days, but they filed the petition seeking extension of time
within five days prior to the expiry of the statutory period i.e., on 175 th day.
He further submitted that the investigating agency has to collect CDR report
with regard to A4, A5 and A7 from CFSL, Hyderabad. The learned Special
Judge after considering the serious nature of the offence, involvement of
foreign nationals and also involvement of A6 in other case, found that
investigation in the above case required detailed analysis and extended the
time for a period of three months. Therefore, the revision petitioners are not
entitled to the relief as sought for in this revision petition.
11. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
12. Admittedly, the first petitioner-A4 and the second petitioner-A6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.06.2024 and
26.06.2024, respectively for the offences under 8(c) read with 22(c), 27(A),
28 and 29 of NDPS Act. As per Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act since the
seized contraband is a commercial quantity, the investigation has to be
completed and charge sheet has to be filed within a period of 180 days from
the date of remand. Had the investigating agency failed to file the charge-
sheet within the statutory period, they are entitled to file the petition for
extension. In the present case, the respondent-Police have not filed the
charge sheet within the statutory period and they have filed the petition for
extension in Crl.M.P.No.13778 of 2024 by invoking Section 36A(4) of
NDPS Act, which came to be allowed.
13. On a perusal of the entire records, particularly, petition filed by
the respondent seeking extension, it is seen that the respondent-Police have
given valid reason for non-filing of the charge sheet within the statutory
period and also given reasons for filing extension of time under Section
36A(4) of NDPS Act.
14. For better appreciation, it is appropriate to extract Section 36A(4)
of NDPS Act which read as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
''36A. Offences triable by Special Courts :
..........
(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence
punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27
A or for offences involving commercial quantity the
references in sub-section (2) of section 167 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof
to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed
as reference to "one hundred and eighty days":
Provided that, if it is not possible to complete
the investigation within the said period of one hundred
and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said
period up to one year on the report of the Public
Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation
and the specific reasons for the detention of the
accused beyond the said period of one hundred and
eighty days.''
15. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that no specific report indicating the progress of the investigation was
submitted by the Prosecutor before the Court, but they have simply narrated
the events of the investigation, which was not sufficient to extend the time
for further investigation. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent-
Police have moved the special Court five days prior to expiry of the statutory
period. On a perusal of the materials, this Court finds that commission of the
offence has not been committed within the Country and since most of the
accused persons are native of Sri Lanka, investigation has to be extended to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
Sri Lanka. Further, the seized contraband is of a commercial quantity and
also huge Indian currency and foreign currency was also seized by the
investigating agency and also CFSL report from Hyderabad is yet to be
received. The Court below after taking into consideration of the aforesaid
aspects has granted extension for a period of three months. There is no
quarrel with the proposition laid down in the decision referred to by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, however, in the present case, the
prosecutor has clearly indicated the progress of the investigation and also
clearly explained as to why extension of time is required for further
investigation, therefore, this Court finds that the decision referred by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the present case on
hand.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find
any reason to interfere with the order of the Special Court. Accordingly, this
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
17. The respondent-Police is directed to complete the investigation
and file charge sheet as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within the
extended period of three months by the Special Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
03.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
ms
To
1. The Principal Special Court Under
EC & NDPS Act, Chennai.
2. The Intelligence Officer,
NCB, Chennai Zone Unit,
Chennai -77.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison for Womne -3,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN, J
ms
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 04:47:03 pm )
