Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Enforcement Directorate Government Of ... vs Kapil Wadhawan on 27 March, 2023
In the Enforcement Directorate case, the Enforcement Director
had filed a complaint through e-mail on 11.07.2020 followed by a physical
application on 13.07.2020. The Apex Court held that as on 11.07.2020
which was a Saturday, the complaint was not available before the Court and
only on Monday (i.e) on 13.07.2020, the physical application was available.
17/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.901 of 2024
Therefore, it was held that by the time the physical copy was filed before the
Court, the right of the accused therein had accrued and he had also filed a
default bail application. Therefore, the Apex Court taking into consideration
the indefeasible right provided under Section 167(2) of Cr.PC came to a
conclusion that the same cannot be defeated by virtue of the complaint being
sent by the Enforcement Director through e-mail on 11.07.2020, which was
a Saturday and which complaint was not even before the Court.
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Achpal @ Ramswaroop vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 2018
18. The next judgement that was relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in Achpal case was also a case where as on the 90 th day,
there were no papers or charge sheet in terms of Section 173 of Cr.PC.
Therefore, there was no occasion for the Magistrate to deal with the same
and the indefeasible right accrued in favour of the accused under Section
167 (2) of Cr.PC and therefore, it was held that the accused person therein is
entitled to be released on statutory bail.
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 February, 2013
20. In the case on hand, it has to be construed that the final report
along with the materials was available before the Court on 13.11.2023 and
the Court below had applied its mind and taken cognizance on 15.11.2023
and the case was also numbered on the same day. Admittedly, the 180 th day
expired only on 15.11.2023. This factual scenario in the instant case, makes
19/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.901 of 2024
a huge difference when it is compared with the facts as found in the above
two judgements referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
judgements that were relied upon by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor in Suresh Kumar case and SFIO case, referred supra makes it
very clear that as per the scheme of Cr.PC, once the charge sheet is filed
before the Court within the statutory period, that must be taken to be
sufficient compliance with the provision under Section 167 of Cr.PC. It is
immaterial as to whether cognizance of that final report was taken or not
within the statutory period. This dictum laid down in the above two
judgements will directly apply to the facts of the present case.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Rahul Modi on 27 March, 2019
20. In the case on hand, it has to be construed that the final report
along with the materials was available before the Court on 13.11.2023 and
the Court below had applied its mind and taken cognizance on 15.11.2023
and the case was also numbered on the same day. Admittedly, the 180 th day
expired only on 15.11.2023. This factual scenario in the instant case, makes
19/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.901 of 2024
a huge difference when it is compared with the facts as found in the above
two judgements referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
judgements that were relied upon by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor in Suresh Kumar case and SFIO case, referred supra makes it
very clear that as per the scheme of Cr.PC, once the charge sheet is filed
before the Court within the statutory period, that must be taken to be
sufficient compliance with the provision under Section 167 of Cr.PC. It is
immaterial as to whether cognizance of that final report was taken or not
within the statutory period. This dictum laid down in the above two
judgements will directly apply to the facts of the present case.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
W.P.L.R.T 141 Of 2010 Subhas Chandra ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 May, 2011
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor apart from addressing
6/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.901 of 2024
the issue involved in the present case, also brought to the notice of this Court
that there is a practice in almost all the Special Courts to take up the
extension petition and the statutory bail petition together and pass common
orders. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in many
cases the extension petition is filed under Section 36A (4) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called as the “NDPS
Act”) within time and whereas, it is numbered later and it is taken up along
with the statutory bail petition filed by the accused. In other words, by the
time the extension petition is taken up for hearing, the statutory period
comes to an end and therefore, some directions must be issued by this Court
to the Special Courts, to follow a uniform procedure in dealing with these
petitions. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the
judgement of the Calcutta Full Bench Judgement in the case of [Subhas
Yadav and others Vs. State of West Bengal] reported in 2023 SCC online
Cal 313. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor specifically relied upon
Paragraph 31 in that judgement which gives the conclusion for the issues
taken up by the Full Bench.