SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision is made to the order dtd. 20/3/2024, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Roorkee, District Haridwar. By the impugned order, the Investigating Officer has been given 90 days further time to complete the investigation in Case Crime No. 599 of 2023, under Sec. 387, 506, 120B IPC and Sec. 15 (c), 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967("UAPA") ("the case").

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the case is under the provisions of the UAPA also. He would submit that by virtue of Sec. 43D of the UAPA, the period of detention given under Sec. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") has been extended. From 15 days, it has been extended to 30 days and for 60 days or 90 days, it has been maintained as 90 days. But, he would submit that the extension of time for investigation beyond 90 days can only be granted by the court, under the proviso to Sec. 43D (2) of the UAPA. It is argued that in the instant case, the magistrate has extended the period from 90 days up to 180 days and has granted 90 days extra time for completion of investigation, which is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel has also raised following points in his submission:-