VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vijay Kumar, the petitioner has brought this revision petition under the provisions of section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 06.02.2013 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby the application of the petitioner for bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application made by the Additional Public Prosecutor for extension of time of investigation beyond 180 days was not valid. According to him, that application did not come in the form of a report on the circumstances in which the investigation could not be completed within 180 days. He has further submitted that the challan was not filed within a period of 180 days and after the petitioner filed an application under section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the state filed an application for extension of time for investigation and vide order dated 06.02.2013 , learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala dismissed the application for bail while allowed the application under section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). He has cited before me two decisions, one of a Coordinate Bench of this court in Rakesh Kumar and another v. State of Punjab, 2011 3 RCR(Cri) 297 and the other of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Kumar Kedia alias Sanjay Kerdia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another, 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 942 Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has contended that the time of 180 days has been rightly extended by learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala and consequently dismissal of application under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. could not be challenged as invalid.

(3.) Section 36-A(4) of the Act lays down that the period of 90 days as mentioned in section 167(2) Cr.P.C. shall be construed as 180 days so far as the offence is under section 24 or 27-A or for offences involving commercial quantity of the contraband. By way of a proviso, it is added that this period of 180 days could be extended up to one year but that has to be done on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating (i) progress of the investigation and (ii) the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the said period of 180 days.