DAYAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1568 of 2022 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Ss. 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution allegation is that, on 10/8/2022, based on the secret information that contraband articles procured from other States are kept for retail sale, the Sub Inspector of Police and party raided the suspected location near to the guardroom of the KSRTC bus stand, Thrissur. Upon such raid, 97 grams of Methamphetamine was recovered and the accused arrested. During interrogation, the accused revealed that the contraband articles were received from New Delhi through DTDC courier. Thereupon, the DTDC Hub at Ernakulam was inspected and 400 grams of Methamphetamine was seized. As the investigation could not be completed within the 180 days of petitioner's arrest, the Public Prosecutor filed Annexure 2 petition under Sec. 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, seeking extension of the period for completing the investigation by two months. By Annexure 3 order dtd. 9/2/2023, the Sessions Court allowed the petition and extended the time for completing the investigation by two months. This Crl.M.C is filed seeking to quash Annexure 3 order and for a direction to release the petitioner on statutory bail.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed Annexure 3 on three grounds; (i) Annexure 2 petition does not satisfy the requirements of Sec. 36A(4), (ii) The Public Prosecutor acted as a mere post office by submitting the report prepared by the investigating officer after converting it as a petition under Sec. 36A(4). (iii) The court below committed gross illegality in mechanically ordering extension of period for completing investigation, in spite of the prosecution having failed to indicate the progress of investigation and to provide specific reasons for detaining the accused beyond the period of 180 days.

(3.) In elaboration of the contention, reference was made to the statements in Annexure 2, it is contended that, rather than indicating the progress of investigation, the petition reveals the failure of investigation. It is argued that , failure of the investigating agency to identify the source of contraband articles and to find out the whereabouts of an African citizen, who is alleged to be the kingpin, cannot result in the petitioner's valuable right to liberty being curtailed. Moreover, instead of specifying the reason for continuing the petitioner's detention beyond 180 days, only a general statement that trade of contraband articles may harm normal well being of the society and release of the accused on completion of statutory remand period will adversely affect the progress of investigation, is made. In order to buttress the challenge against the impugned order, reliance is placed on the decision in Ubaid A.M v State of Kerala [2022 SCC OnLine Ker.5793].