Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. The absence of annexing the report of the Investigating Officer would not denude the legal value to be attached to the report of the Public Prosecutor.

B. FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR INVESTIGATION BEYOND 90 DAYS AS IS PERMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 22(2)(b) OF THE KCOCA.

24. In terms of the proviso inserted as specified under Section 22 (2) (b) the detention of the accused may be further extended beyond the period of 90 days as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure up to a period of 180 days.

25. The proviso which provides for such extension as inserted by Section 22 (2) (b) of KCOCA, reads as follows:

22. (2) (b) After the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted namely:- "Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Special Court shall extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days."

That by itself in the present facts would be sufficient.

D. SATISFACTION OF THE DESIGNATED JUDGE.

32. In terms of proviso inserted by Section 22 of KCOCA, power is conferred on the Special Court to extend the period of custody beyond the maximum period of 90 days is on the designated Judge who needless to state is required to be satisfied about the report of the Public Prosecutor being in compliance with the requirements of indicating the progress of investigation and specifying reasons for detention of accused.

36. Clearly the order reflects application of mind and such satisfaction of the designated Judge would satisfy the

- 54 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49636 HC-KAR statutory mandate under Section 167 (2) (a) while extending judicial remand as well as the order extending time for investigation in terms of the proviso under 22 (2)

(b) of KCOCA.

37. So far as the challenge to order of the Court extending investigation by 45 days it would be sufficient to observe such extension is an exercise of judicial discretion by the Court and we find no reason to interfere with such exercise of judicial discretion.