Kumaravel v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 20.12.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.2110 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.19252 of 2023 Kumaravel, S/o.Jayaraman ... Petitioner Vs.
The State Rep. by the The Inspector of Police, N-1 Royapuram Police Station, [Cr.No.131 of 2023].
... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.8122 of 2023 in Cr.No.131 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai and set aside the same and allow this revision petition considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner :
Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratinam, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Kripakaran For Respondent :
Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor Page No.1 of 5
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 09.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.8122 of 2023 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, 2.The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is that the extension petition of statutory period of investigation was filed by the respondent Police on 26.10.2023, i.e., on the 172nd day. Thereafter notice was served on the petitioner on 06.11.2023. 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 04.11.2023, i.e., on the 181st day, praying to enlarge the petitioner on statutory bail. The Lower Court by a common order, dated 09.11.2023 allowed the extension petition filed by the respondent Police and dismissed the statutory bail petition filed by the petitioner. Now, challenging the extension order under Section 36-A(4) of NDPS Act in Crl.M.P.No.8122 of 2023, this revision is filed.
Page No.2 of 5
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submits that the petitioner had challenged the extension order passed by the lower Court. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner or his counsel to be informed about the filing of the extension petition. In this case admittedly, extension petition was filed on 26.10.2023, notice was served on 06.11.2023, thereafter the case was periodically adjourned and finally order passed on 09.11.2023. 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 rightly 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 has been ordered to the petitioner on 06.11.2023, but when it was served no date given. The pronouncement of order was made on 09.11.2023, but by then the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., default bail already filed. Further, Page No.
after satisfying with the Special Public Prosecutor request for extension of statutory period of investigation, the Trial Court had considered the same and granted extension of time. The petitioner accrued right of statutory bail granted in Crl.R.C.No.2109 of 2023. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the impugned order, dated 09.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.8122 of 2023. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20.02.2024 vv2 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To 1.The Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, 2.The Inspector of Police, N-1 Royapuram Police Station, 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.4 of 5
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN 20.02.2024 Page No.5 of 5