Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baby Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8361
1 M.Cr.C. No.6235/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 6235 of 2025
BABY KEWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Ms. Vidhi Singh - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of order dated 13th January, 2025 passed by Special Judge NDPS Act, Rewa, whereby the application filed for extension of time for filing the charge-sheet has been allowed by the trial Court.
2. It is the case of the applicant that a criminal case was registered against the applicant for offence under Section 8/21, 22, 25, 25A, 29, 8A/27B of NDPS Act at Crime number 273/2024 at Police Station Chorahata, District, Rewa. The investigation is pending consideration in the matter. On completion of 90 days, the Authorities were not in a position to file charge-sheet before the trial Court. Therefore, prosecution filed an application seeking extension of time for filing charge-sheet on 13/01/2025 on the ground that seizure is from different and distinct places and in order to collect the bottles containing contraband, they require additional 90 days time for completing the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 25-02-2025 18:13:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8361 2 M.Cr.C. No.6235/2025 investigation. The trial Court considered the application and granted 60 days additional time for completion of the investigation.
3. It is argued that the trial Court has not considered the provisions of Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act. The investigation as far as the present applicant is concerned is already over and there is no further requirement for continuing in custody. It is further argued that charge sheet should have been filed by the Authorities within 180 days from the date of arrest, but that has not been done in the present case. It is argued that the application seeking extension of time has been wrongly allowed without considering the provisions and the settled legal position by this Court in the case of Dinesh Agrawal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 21st September 2021 in M.Cr.C. No.38064/2021 in analogous hearing with other Petitions. It is argued that the Investigating Officer has filed an application seeking extension of time on his own without considering the provisions of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The application should have been moved through the public prosecutor but that has not been done in the present case. It is in blatant violation of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh reported in AIR 1964 SC
358. She has further relied upon the order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of Sabarinath Vs. State of Kerala decided on 2nd of June 2023 in CRL.MC. No.3242 of 23, wherein similar provisions were considered and following the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Ravindran Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485, the petition was allowed. She submits that the trial Court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and allowed the application. Even otherwise, cogent Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 25-02-2025 18:13:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8361 3 M.Cr.C. No.6235/2025 reasons are to be assigned in the application seeking extension of time. No such reasons are pointed out in the application. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has committed an error in allowing such application.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the contention and supported the impugned order pointing out the fact that huge quantity of contraband bottles of cough syrup containing contraband are to be recovered. The accused persons are operating a racket wherein till the date of filing of application, 73290 bottles of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate were recovered. These bottles are collected from different places. As the accused belongs to different places, the Authorities could not complete the investigation and make the seizure of all these bottles containing contraband within the stipulated time frame, therefore application seeking extension of time was filed which was duly allowed by the trial Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It may be a case where investigation as far as the applicant is concerned must be over but the fact remains that as the accused belong to different places and the seizure has to be carried out from different and distinct places, therefore, some time was required by the Authorities. The application was rightly filed before the trial Court seeking extension of time. The information of the places from where seizure has to be made is supplied by accused themselves in terms of statement recorded under Section 27. As far as the judgment relied by counsel for the applicant is concerned, the same is on different facts and it is virtually dealing with consideration for grant of default bail in absence of filing of complete charge-sheet in the matter in the stipulated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 25-02-2025 18:13:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8361 4 M.Cr.C. No.6235/2025 time frame. Applicant has prayed for quashment of impugned order which, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, is unwarranted. The trial Court has rightly considered the aspect of the matter and has rightly granted extension of time for filing of charge- sheet.
7. Accordingly, no case for quashment of order dated 13th January, 2025 passed by Special Judge NDPS Act, Rewa, is made out. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 25-02-2025 18:13:06