DURAIPANDIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is involved in a case of murder. He was arrested on 19. 2. 2001. He is A7 in this case. When bail was moved before this court, his application was dismissed. THEreafter, he moved bail before the learned Magistrate concerned before whom the first information report is pending to release him under Section 167 (2), Cr. P. C. stating that investigation has not been completed within 90 days. THE learned Magistrate in his order has stated that a report has been filed by the police against the accused including this petitioner and though the report says that it is a preliminary report, it is only a final report and therefore Section 167 (2), Cr. P. C. has no application. He also observes that since it is evident that explosive substances , were used by some of the accused, consent of the central Government is required for proceeding with the case. As against this order passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner went to the Sessions judge under Section 439, Cr. P. C. by moving bail.

(2.) THE learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai by his order in Crl. M. P. No. 8614 of 2001 dismissed the application holding that the report filed by the Investigating Officer is complete in all respects within the meaning of Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. and the final report after completion of investigation has been filed within the stipulated time. THEre is no dispute that the preliminary report dated 17. 5. 2001 was filed on 18. 5. 2001.

(3.) THIS is a case where the lodged preliminary report disclosed the overt acts of all the accused and the fact that they have been in possession of fire arms as well as explosive substances. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that so far as the investigation regarding this crime is concerned, is complete. Instead of describing the report as a preliminary report, the investigating officer ought to have described it as only a final report under Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. , because no more investigation is required in this case. Getting a sanction or consent of the government cannot be said to be part of an investigation in a crime. That is the statutory requirement to be complied with. Therefore, according to me in this case, investigation is completed even as early as 18. 5. 2001. The only further requirement to shape the case is to get a consent of the Central Government under Section 7 of the Indian Explosive Substances act and sanction of. the District Magistrate concerned under Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act. These two requirements cannot be said to be part of investigation. Therefore, the mere description of the cause title of the report as preliminary report does not make it a preliminary report at all. Merely because of want of sanction under Section 39 of Indian Arms Act and want of consent of Central Government under Indian Explosive Substances Act, the report filed by the investigating agency cannot be said to be a preliminary report and the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge are right, in holding that it is only a final report. Therefore, since final report in accordance with law has been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, the detention of the petitioner beyond that period does not become illegal.