Top News Headlines 4th Jun 2022: NDPS Act; Challan Filed Without FSL Report Incomplete

NDPS Act; Challan Filed Without FSL Report Incomplete: Punjab And Haryana HC 

• In Rohtash @ Raju vs State of Haryana the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana HC has observed that in case of offences which come under the NDPS Act, the FSL Report goes to the root cause of the case, and hence a chargesheet which is filed without the same cannot be said to be complete. 
• It is important to note that the Karnataka HC, in its order dated the 29-03-2022, in the case of Mr. Sayyad Mohammad @ Nasim vs State of Karnataka had observed that the non-filing of the FSL Report by itself would not make the chargesheet contrary to section 173(2) of the CrPC, and would not be a ground for default bail under section 167(2) of CrPC. 
• The petitioner, in the instant case, was arrested and presented before the Court on 23-9-2021. The challan was presented against him on 17-3-2022. However, the same was without FSL Report, and thus, the petitioner contended that the challan was incomplete and he was entitled to default bail. 
• It was also contended that no application under section 36A(4) by the public prosecutor seeking the extension of time to complete the investigation in the case at hand. 
• The Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that the challan along with an application under section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and the request for seeking extension of time was accepted by the Trial Court and thus, the bail application moved by the petitioner under section 167(2) of CrPC was dismissed. 
• It was also argued that even though the charge sheet was filed without the FSL Report, the same cannot be treated as being incomplete. 
• The Hon’ble HC observed that an application under section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act should be accompanied by a report of the Public Prosecutor which would indicate the progress of the investigation in the matter and further mention the reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days. This was not done in the instant case, and hence the order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable. 
• The Court relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Muhammad Arbaz and ors vs State of NCT of Delhi, and the decisions of the Court in Jagvinder Singh vs State of Haryana and Ajaib Singh vs State of Haryana and held that the FSL report goes to the root of the case and is a material document. The filing of Challan without the same cannot be treated as a complete challan. The Apex Court in Muhammad Arbaz’s case granted relief to the accused under similar circumstances.  
• Thus, the petition was allowed, and the Court concluded that the order rejecting the application for default bail is liable to be set aside. The petitioner was, thus, released on bail. 

Victim Cannot Invoke SC/ST Act Merely Because His Mother Belongs To Scheduled Caste: Karnataka HC

• In Bhimappa Jantakal @ Bhimanna & Ors. v State of Karnataka and ANR, the Karnataka High Court has held that if a person's one parent belongs to a Schedule Caste while other to a forward caste, it will not be assumed that they belong to the former's caste.
• In order to register a complaint under the Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, such a person will have to specify and plead that they belong to the Schedule Caste. 
• Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while adjudicating on the matter said that the status of a child born from parents belonging to scheduled and forward castes, will have to be pleaded before the Court and the same will not be considered axiomatic.
• In this case, the respondent, Ramesh Gavisiddappa Ginageri, alleged that the petitioners name-called him because of his caste and thereafter assaulted him. Accordingly, he filed a FIR in the local police station.
• In response to this, the petitioners filed a discharge application u/s 227 CrPC before the Sessions Judge and contended that the complainant belongs to the Vishwakarma Caste, which is not a Scheduled Caste. 
• Further, the father of the complainant belongs to a forward caste and hence, he is not entitled to file a complaint under the SC/ST Act. 
• The counsel of the petitioners also said that the wound certificate produced by the complainant does not show any external injuries and therefore, the case of assault and intimidation cannot be made.
•  
• The Court observed that the complainant is bald and vague and doesn't contain any fact about the charges pressed. 
• Accordingly, Justice Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the alleged accused seeking to quash the proceedings carried against them by the complainant u/s 323, 505, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of SC/ ST Act.
• While deciding on the question whether the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste, the Court relied on the Apex court's judgment in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State Of Gujarat. 
• According to the precedents, a child born out of an inter-caste marriage will have to plead before the Court and prove that they belong to the Scheduled Caste. 
• The SC/ST Act will not be provoked merely because the mother of the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 

Smuggling of Gold Without Threatening Economic Security Of India Is Not a Terrorist Act Under UAPA: Delhi High Court

• The Delhi High Court in Vaibhav Sampat More v. National Investigation Agency, held that smuggling gold without threatening economic security or stability of India will not come under the ambit of terrorist activities under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
• The Court has granted bail to all the appellant accused persons who filed an appeal challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting their bail application.
• The matter involved offences u/s 16, 18, 20 of the UAPA and u/s 120B, 204, 409 and 471 IPC. 
• The prosecution has contended that the accused appellants, excluding Vaibhav Sampat More, when intercepted by a Zonal Unit of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were found to carry 504 gold bars weighing a total of 83.621 kilograms.
• These gold bars were recovered from the accused at the New Delhi Railway Station. 
• Subsequently, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered an RC under Section 15(1) (a) (iiia) of UAPA. 
• The appellants argued that the prosecution has no evidence to support their claim except their statements recorded by the Customs Officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 
• The appellants further contended that this statement is inadmissible in a UAPA, as a separate procedure is prescribed for this Act. 
• Furthermore, it was argued that the prosecution has no evidence to prove that the gold bars were procured from outside the country. 
• The Hon'ble High Court took note of the arguments and evidence presented and granted bail to all the accused persons. 
• The Court also observed that in order to attract sections of the UAPA, two factors are important, namely; threatening economic security of India and bringing monetary instability in India with the act caused.
• Since, neither of the above two essentials are proved by the prosecution, the Court held that mere smuggling of gold cannot be called a "terrorist act" under the UAPA.