Case title:
Chander Prakash vs State of Haryana
Date of Order:
8 May 2019
Bench:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raj Shekhar Attri
Parties:
Petitioner - Chander Prakash
Respondent - State Of Haryana
SUBJECT
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 serves as a crucial tool in the fight against drug abuse and addiction. Section 22 of the Act punishes anyone who acts in contravention of the act and manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State, or uses any psychotropic substance. Section 22(b) provides that a person is punishable for any contravention involving a quantity lesser than a commercial quantity but greater than a small quantity. Section 36-A of the Act states that all offenses under the Act which are punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than three years shall be triable only by the Special Court.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Section 22(b)
- Section 36-A
OVERVIEW
- The accused was charged under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- He filed an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for a grant of default bail but it was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat.
- Aggrieved by this impugned order, the present petition was filed before the Punjab-Haryana High Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Is the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat maintainable?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- Mr. Navkiran Singh represented the petitioner in the present case.
- The counsel contended that after the arrest of the petitioner, a challan was presented by the investigating agency without the Forensic Science Laboratory report.
- The counsel pointed out that the statutory period for completing an investigation under the NDPS Act is 180 days. The petitioner was arrested on 01.11.2022 and the investigation period would have expired on 01.05.2023.
- It was asserted that the FSL report had not been filed by the investigating agency even by 01.05.2023, and hence the investigation could not be said to be complete.
- Reliance was placed on the case Ajit Singh & Jeeta & another vs. State of Punjab [CRR No.4659 of 2015 d/d 30.11.2018] to submit that the petitioner is entitled to default bail as the challan presented was incomplete.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Mr. Chetan Sharma, Dy. Advocate General represented the respondent.
- The counsel submitted that the investigation period had not elapsed as the Court below had already extended it for a year via the impugned order.
- However, the counsel failed to argue the fact that no report as mandated under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act, seeking an extension of time had been made by the Public Prosecutor.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Punjab-Haryana High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail.
- The court reiterated that if the investigation remains incomplete within 180 days an invincible right would be vested in favor of the accused under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
- It was observed that the FSL report must be a part of the challan as the same would be one of the factors deciding the nature of the substance allegedly recovered.
- The case of Saleem & Mulla vs. State of Haryana [CRM-M No.11271 of 2021 d/d 26.03.2021] was cited to substantiate the above point.
- The court provided clarity regarding Section 36-A of the NDPS Act and stated that the legislative intent of this provision is that the option of seeking an extension of time has not been left to the investigating agency.
CONCLUSION
In the present case, the Punjab-Haryana High Court bluntly held that the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat misinterpreted Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. The bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raj Shekhar Attri noted that the constitutional guarantee of protection of life and liberty against unauthorized and arbitrary detention must be interpreted in consonance with the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that the period for investigation cannot be mechanically extended under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
