Abdul Kareem v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.02.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Abdul Kareem ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

The State rep by its The Inspector of Police, H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.129 of 2023) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records and set aside the order dated 05.01.2024 of the learned Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.9321 of 2023 and enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.129 of 2023 pending on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in granting extension of statutory period of investigation in Crl.M.P.No.9321 of 2023 filed under Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the extension petition of statutory period of investigation was filed by the respondent on 02.12.2023, i.e., on the 179 th day. Thereafter notice was served on the petitioner. In the meanwhile, since the charge sheet was not filed, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. On 08.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.9408 of 2023, i.e., on the 185 th day, praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused on statutory bail. The Lower Court by a common order dated 05.01.2024 allowed the extension petition filed by the respondent and dismissed the statutory bail petition filed by the petitioner. 2/6

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the petitioner had challenged only the extension petition. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the accused or his counsel to be informed about the filing of the petition. In this case admittedly, extension petition was filed on 02.12.2023, notice was served on 13.12.2023. The consideration of the Trial Court is that the prosecution has to prove the requirement and stage of the investigation and why such extension is required. The Trial Court on satisfying with the reasons given by the prosecution had extended the statutory period of investigation.

4.Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that for extension petition the requirement is that notice has to be given to the other side. In this case notice said to be served on the petitioner on 13.12.2023. Further after satisfying with the Special Public Prosecutor request for extension of statutory period of investigation, the Trial Court had rightly considered the same and granted 3/6

extension of time. In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in this revision. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 5.It is made clear that the petitioner's right under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not considered in this petition, it is for the petitioner to agitate the same, if he so desires, by a separate petition. 13.02.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order / Non-speaking order rsi 4/6

To 1.The Inspector of Police, H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.

2.The Principal Special Judge, EC and NDPS Court, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rsi 13.02 .202 6/6