Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gangya @ Gangadhar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.S. Bopanna
1
ITEM NO.24 Court 13 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3954/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-01-2021
in CRLA No. 100329/2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
Circuit Bench at Dharwad)
GANGYA @ GANGADHAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.64455/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T. )
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 4260/2021 (II-C)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.68585/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T.)
Date : 02-08-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The accused Nos.1 to 7 & 9 are in appeal in SLP(Crl.) No.3954 of 2021 whereas the accused No.8 is in appeal in SLP(Crl.) No.4260 of 2021.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.08.04 19:16:55 IST Reason:The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench, Karnataka on 22.01.2021 whereby an application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the 2 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was declined. The petitioners are accused for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504, 506, 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Section 25(1)A of the Arms Act and Section 3 & 4 of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (KCOCA).
The High Court has declined the application for default bail inter-alia on the ground that no notice for extension of time for submissions of the chargesheet in terms of Section 22 of KCOCA Act is required as extension was sought before the expiry of initial 90 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of notice is mandatory in terms of judgment of this Court in “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602 wherein, in para 21 it has been held that though neither clause (b) nor clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 provide for issuance of notice but such notice must be read into these provisions both in the interest of the accused and the prosecution as well as for doing complete justice between the parties. Thus, it is argued that notice to the accused were mandatorily required to be issued.
Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel has further argued that Public Prosecutor has mechanically forwarded the request of Investigating Officer for extension of time to file chargesheet and that such action was without applying the mind of the Public Prosecutor independently. Such act of the Public Prosecutor is contrary to judgment of this Court in “The State of Maharashtra vs Surendra Pundlik Gadling” reported in (2019) 5 SCC 178.
As per the facts on record, the 90 days in filing of the chargesheet was to expire on 06.08.2020. The Investigating Officer submitted report on 30.07.2020. Such report of the Investigating 3 Officer was made part of an application for advancement of a date of hearing to the of submission of application. The learned Principal District Judge passed an order on 30.07.2020 advancing the date and granting another 90 days to the prosecutor to complete the investigation.
The matter remain pending before the Court and application for default bail was filed on 12.10.2020 just 7 days prior to the expiry of extended period of 90 days.
The judgment of this Court in case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) contemplates notice primarily as a principle of natural justice. The rules of principal of natural justice are not to be applied mechanically but keeping in view the facts of each case. In terms of Section 167(2) of the Code, the Court has to authorize detention for a term not exceeding 15 days. The detention of the accused must have been authorised on many occasions thereafter may be by virtual mode. However, no grievance was raised by the petitioner(s)s before the Court till 12.10.2020. Therefore, the accused cannot claim benefit of violation of principle of natural justice in view of their conduct post expiry of 90 days.
In Surendra Pundlik Gadling (supra), the Public Prosecutor filed report of the Investigating Officer by writing on the left side margin of the application, the name of public prosecutor and appending her signatures. It was in these circumstances; it was held that the public prosecutor must apply his mind on the justification for seeking extension in the time for filing of the chargesheet.
In the present case, keeping in view of the detailed report of the Investigating Officer, the Public Prosecutor filed an application with a request to take the case on board on 30.07.2020. The filing of such an application for taking the case on board shows that Public Prosecutor was satisfied with a requirement of 4 extension in filing of the chargesheet.
Thus, we do not find any merit in the application disputing the extension in filing of the chargesheet by 90 days on 30.07.2020.
With the aforesaid observations, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER