APPAALIASPRAKASH HARIBHAU LONDHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Warunjikar, Advocate for the Appellant. Two contentions have been raised before me. Before I proceed to advert to those contentions, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant dates. The applicant was arrested on 9th June, 2004. The statutory period for filing chargesheet would have ordinarily expired on 6th September, 2004. However, much before that, the Public Prosecutor has filed an application for extension of time to file chargesheet, in terms of Section 21 (2) (b) of M. C. O. C. Act, 1999, read with Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, on 18. 8. 2004. The copy of the said application was served on the applicant on 20. 8. 2004. The applicant was produced before the trial Court, when he was called upon to submit his say to the application for extension of time preferred by the prosecution. The matter was kept by the trial Court on 21. 8. 2004. However, no reply was filed by the applicant in response to the subject application, nor any grievance was made that he has not understood the contents of the application served on him. Accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to pass an order on 21. 8. 2004, accepting the request of the Prosecution to permit them to file chargesheet by 20. 9. 2004. It is stated across the bar by the Learned Addl. P. P. that the chargesheet has since been filed in terms of said order dated 21st August, 2004, as is mentioned in this petition, on 20. 9. 2004 before the trial Court.

(2.) THE first argument canvassed by Mr. Warunjikar, Learned Counsel for the applicant is that right to be released on bail, which accrued under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 21 of M. C. O. C. Act, is an indefeasible right. In such a case, it is imperative for the prosecution not only to serve the copy of the application for extension of time on the accused in advance, but also to ensure that the contents of application are explained to the accused so as to enable the accused to meaningfully resist the prayer for extension of time. That has not been done in the present case; for which reason the order permitting extension of time which is impugned in this petition, cannot be sustained. It is next contended that law obligates the prosecution to ask for extension of time if the chargesheet cannot be filed in the specified time, but that does not mean that the prosecution an file such application well in advance or much before the expiry of the statutory period. This argument proceeds on the facts which are already referred to earlier that, although time to file chargesheet was to expire on 6. 9. 2004, the prosecution filed the application for extension of time as early as on 18. 8. 2004. On this argument, it is contended that the order in question cannot be sustained.

(3.) HAVING considering the rival submissions, I have no hesitation in observing that the Petition is devoid of any merits. The first argument clearly overlooks the requirement of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 21 of M. C. O. C. Act. It is the satisfaction of the court which is relevant for granting extension of time to file charge sheet. That satisfaction has been recorded by the Court below while granting extension of time to file charge sheet. Indeed, the accused is entitled to oppose the prayer for extension of time on permissible grounds. In the present case, it is seen that the application for extension of time was served on the applicant on 20. 8. 2004. He was also produced before the Court thereafter, on which date he prayed for time to file his reply. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 21. 8. 2004. On 21. 8. 2004, however, no reply was filed on behalf of the applicant, nor any grievance was made on his behalf that he has not understood the contents of the application moved by the prosecution on account of which he was disabled from meaningfully resisting the same. Obviously, in this background the Court below proceeded to pass necessary order on the subject application moved by the prosecution. In the fact situation of the present case, there is no substance in the grievance that the applicant was denied any opportunity of resisting the application for extension moved by the prosecution. Accordingly, the first contention should fail.