APPUKUTTAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl.M.C. is directed against the order dated 2.4.2013 by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam whereby, the said court allowed an application under S. 36A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act granting extension of period of investigation up to one year. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is an allegation that huge quantity as much as 100 k.g. of Ganja were seized from four accused persons. The fourth accused had been released on bail but accused Nos. 1 and 2 are under judicial custody. It appears that the 3rd accused has made himself scarce. From the records it is seen that the Investigating Officer, finding that he could not complete the investigation within the stipulated time namely 180 days as envisaged by provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, filed Crl.M.P. No. 675/2013 seeking further extension of time. That was very strongly opposed by the accused who pointed out that an application for extension cannot lie at the instance of the Investigating Officer but has to be filed as a report by the Public Prosecutor, which should also indicate that he has applied his mind and also assessed the progress of the investigation and he feels that further extension of time is necessary.

(2.) The court below holding that since the petition has been signed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it can be in law by treated as an application by him and irrespective of the fact that the affidavit and application was moved by the Investigating Officer, since it has the endorsement of the Assistant Public Prosecutor it satisfies the requirements of proviso to S. 36A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act and accepted the petition and granted the time sought for. The said order is under challenge.

(3.) At the outset itself, it may be stated that the order is clearly unsustainable both on facts and in law. It will be useful to refer to the relevant provision that is S. 36A(4) which reads as follows: