Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.57 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M Ravindran vs The Intelligence Officer Directorate ... on 26 October, 2020
20. However, Mr. Das Mahapatra has raised a valid question of law on the
basis of decisions of Rakesh Pal (supra) and M. Ravindran (supra) cases.
The aforesaid decisions have specifically endorsed the view that the accused
11
should be informed of his right of statutory default bail by the learned
Magistrate or the concerned advocate when such right of the accused
becomes indefeasible. In this case it is alleged that the petitioner has not
been informed of his such right by the learned Special Judge.
Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State Of Assam on 16 August, 2017
20. However, Mr. Das Mahapatra has raised a valid question of law on the
basis of decisions of Rakesh Pal (supra) and M. Ravindran (supra) cases.
The aforesaid decisions have specifically endorsed the view that the accused
11
should be informed of his right of statutory default bail by the learned
Magistrate or the concerned advocate when such right of the accused
becomes indefeasible. In this case it is alleged that the petitioner has not
been informed of his such right by the learned Special Judge.
Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Maharashtra Tr.Cbi,Bombay on 21 March, 2013
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his reply has stated that in
the case law of M. Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has dealt with the meaning of the words 'if not already availed of' in
Sanjay Dutt's case. The Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed in the following
manner:-
Section 190 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed on 17 October, 1944
15. By referring to the judgment of King Emperor (supra) the learned
counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is the duty of the police
authority to submit the FSL Report along with supplementary charge sheet
in view of section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Such action is needed so that FSL Report
can form a part of charge sheet. Neither the court nor the laboratory is
empowered under the law to abort such direction of the law. After going
through the provisions as laid down in sub-section (8) of Section 173 of
8
Cr.P.C. it reveals that such sub-section deals with issue of further
investigation after submission of chargesheet. But, we have strong doubt
whether submission of pending chemical examiner's report after filing of
charge sheet before the Learned Trial Court can be treated as further
investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code as
aforesaid. As the chemical examiner's report is sought for by the concerned
investigating officer during investigation, it is expected that such chemical
examiner's report should reach to the concerned Learned Trial Court
through the investigating officer or the concerned police officer-in-charge of
the investigation. But the question is if the laboratory sends such report to
the concerned Trial Court whether it causes any prejudice to the accused or
not. In fact, in this case also it is revealed that the laboratory sent the
chemical examiner's report to the Learned Trial Court directly as well as a
copy of such report was also sent to the concerned police officer who filed
the supplementary charge sheet along with the said chemical examiner's
report to the court approximately after one month from the date of receipt of
such report from the laboratory. Therefore, it goes to show that the
laboratory by sending such report directly to the concerned trial court has
reduced one month's delay. It further shows that due to procedural
complexities the same report which was sent to the police officer, reached to
the court through the police officer at least one month after the date of
receipt of chemical examiner's report by the court directly from the
laboratory. The action of the laboratory by sending the report directly to the
court can be viewed as an effort on the part of the laboratory to reduce the
9
'systemic' delay which usually occurs in our courts. It is the duty of
everyone involved in the matters of criminal investigation to reduce the
systemic delay as far as practicable.
Rakesh Saha vs West Bengal Board Of Secondary ... on 1 July, 2019
2. In a case under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (in short 'NDPS Act'), undoubtedly the most important and vital piece
of evidence is the chemical report. If the forensic laboratory returns a report
that the sample from the seized articles has tested negative for the presence
of narcotics, meaning thereby that the seized articles do not come within the
purview of the NDPS Act, the prosecution case would fall flat. It is
presumably for this reason that a Coordinate Bench in the case of Rakesh
Sha, supra, held that filing of charge sheet without the chemical report,
even within the statutory period does not satisfy the requirements of
sections 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and an accused person becomes entitled to
statutory bail upon expiry of 180 days (or one year if the period of
investigation is extended by the Special Court) from the date of his arrest.