TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) registered at Police Station, City Malerkotla, District Sangrur, claiming that the prosecution had failed to present the report under Section 173 Cr.PC within the stipulated period and his application for bail was wrongly rejected on 21.9.2013 vide which time to file report under Section 173 Cr.PC, was wrongly extended by the Court. 2. The petitioner is cited as an accused. 45 bottles of Rexcof each weighing 10 ml. and 20 strips of Parvan Spas Capsules, each strip having 10 capsule (total 200 capsules), were allegedly recovered from the petitioneraccused. 3. The claim of the petitioner is contested by respondent-State. It is averred that the investigating officer had ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days." 6. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it becomes clear that in case an accused continues in custody, then maximum period of 90 days fixed under Section 167(2) Cr.PC for filing of report under Section 173 Cr.PC, has legislatively been increased to 180 days for certain category of offences under the Act. The proviso appended to Section 36A(4) authorizes yet further period of detention of the accused by extension of time for furnishing final report under Section 173 Cr.PC. This period in total may go upto one year. The only rider, however, is that the conditions stipulated by the said proviso, are complied with. 7. Submission of final report under Section 173 Cr.PC ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (3) specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days; and, (4) notice is given to the accused. 9. The undisputed facts may be recapitulated to ascertain the claim of the petitioner who was arrested on 9.3.2013. An application under Section 167(2) Cr.PC read with Section 36A(4) of the Act was moved by the petitioner before the trial court on 12.9.2013 mentioning therein that even after expiry of more than 180 days, the challan had not been presented in the case. Notice of this application was given to the State on 13.9.2013 for 17.9.2013 on which date the case was adjourned to 21.9.2013 for report of the investigating officer. When the matter was taken up for considerati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6A(4) of the Act. 12. Application for extension of time moved by the prosecution on 6.9.2013 has its foundation in the request made by the investigating officer for seeking extension of time for filing final report under Section 173 Cr.PC on the plea that chemical report from the laboratory, had not been received. 13. Sample for chemical analysis was sent to the said laboratory on 15.3.2013. Though application moved by the prosecution has a mention therein that a reminder was also issued to the laboratory, but particulars thereof are missing. When such reminder was sent, what action was taken thereon and what efforts were made for obtaining the report within time from the laboratory, are the particulars which are completely missing. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord, it is clear that it is also recorded in routine and in a casual way. 16. In similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered exactly the same satisfaction recorded by the Public Prosecutor recorded in an application which was made for extension of time beyond 180 days of custody of the accused. While dealing with the same matter, the said co-ordinate Bench in CRM-M No.41673 of 2013 decided on 15.1.2014 titled Jeevan Sharma @ Vicky v. State of Punjab had observed as under: 10. In the present case also, the sole reason given in the application of the public prosecutor (Annexure P-3 with the petition), is that: "That I am satisfied that the investigating officer of this case made every effort to....