KAMAL NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed order dated 2.1.2010 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P-S. Act, Jagdalpur in Remand Crimi nal Case No. 146/2009 whereby applicant's application filed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) The applicant was arrested on 11.6.2009 on the allegation that he was found in a vehicle, in which, 165.50 K.G. of ganja was kept. Offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub stances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is alleged to have been regis tered against the applicant. As charge-sheet was not filed within a period of 180 days, the applicant moved an application on 1.1.2010 purporting to be an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on the submission that he was ar rested on 11.6.2009, but as no charge-sheet could not be filed within a period of 180 days, he was entitled to grant of bail. Vide im pugned order dated 2.1.2010, application has been rejected by the Special Judge stat ing that the reason assigned for delay in fil ing charge sheet is satisfactory, as report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been received and owner of the vehicle is also not traceable, and therefore, his state ment could not be taken.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant ar gued that in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 36A of the Act, if the investigation is not completed within a stipulated period of 180 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. It is argued that in the present case, the Public Prosecutor failed to submit a report as required under sub section (4) of Section 36A of the Act, and therefore, the Special Court has committed illegality and acted beyond his jurisdiction in extending the period of one hundred and eighty days. Learned counsel for the appli cant has relied upon a decision in the case of Hitendra Vishhu Thakur and, Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 1994 4 SCC 602. Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 5 SCC 453. ; and Sanjay Kumar Kedia alias Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Con trol Bureau and another.,2010 2 CCSC 687.