M. RAVINDRAN Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
LAWS(SC)-2020-10-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 26,2020

M. Ravindran Appellant
VERSUS
Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NASER BIN ABU BAKR YAFAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
NAIMUDDIN LASKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
SERAJUL SK. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
SIRAJ VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
COMANDUR PARTHASARATHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-1347] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU MANDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
NILESH MANSUKHLAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-1783] [REFERRED TO]
BIKASH BAISHYA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
RIJESH RAVINDRAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR ALI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
ARSHOM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-7-230] [REFERRED TO]
A.G.VIJAYENDRA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
PHANI SARKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY DUBEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
UGOCHUKWU SOLOMON UBABUKO VS. UOI [LAWS(BOM)-2021-10-312] [REFERRED TO]
SAINATH BAPU SALGAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
BENKELBIN NONGRUM VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2021-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE VS. RAHUL MODI [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
MANINDERJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2021-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
AKHERAJ VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
C. PARTHASARTHY VS. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
AMOL KALE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
COMANDURU PARTHASARATHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-159] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
PARITOSH KUMAR SINGH ALIAS DIWAKAR CHOUDHARY S/O SMT. KAMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR RATHORE VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU NARCOTICS [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
SK. MIRAJ VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
COMANDUR PARTHSARATHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-854] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPA DAIMARI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
ANSAR ALI PIYADA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-182] [REFERRED TO]
SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANGI SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
SAJAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2021-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2021-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
MANORANJAN DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. BAKI BILLA GAZI [LAWS(CAL)-2022-2-105] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed in Crl. O.P. No. 9750 of 2019 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras is called into question in this appeal.
(3.)The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
3.1 The Appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2018 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 25A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act'). After completion of 180 days from the remand date, that is, 31.01.2019, the Appellant (Accused No. 11) filed application for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') on 01.02.2019 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act, Chennai (Trial Court') on the ground that the investigation was not complete and chargesheet had not yet been filed. Accordingly, on 05.02.2019, the Trial Court granted the order of bail in Crl. M.P. No. 131 of 2019 in R.R. No. 09/2017 pending before the said court.

3.2 The Respondent/complainant, i.e. the Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed Crl. O.P. No. 9750 of 2019 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras praying to cancel the bail of the Appellant. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the said appeal and consequently cancelled the order of bail granted by the TrialCourt. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has approached this Court questioning the judgment of the High Court.

3.3 It is not in dispute that the Appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2018 and hence the mandatory period of 180 days prescribed for filing of final report under Section 167(2), CrPC (excluding the date of remand) was completed on 31.01.2019. This is made amply clear by the calculation of days as per the Gregorian calendar as stated below:

JUDGEMENT_37_LAWS(SC)10_2020.html

3.4 Accordingly, the Appellant filed his bail application on 01.02.2019 at 10:30 a.m. before the Trial Court. During the course of hearing of the bail application-after completion of the arguments of the counsel for the Appellant, to be precise-the Respondent/complainant filed an additional complaint against the Appellant at 4:25 p.m. on 01.02.2019 and sought for dismissal of the bail petition on the said basis. However, the Trial Court allowed the bail application on the ground that the Court has no power to intervene with the indefeasible right of the Appellant conferred on him by the legislative mandate of Section 167(2).

3.5 The said judgment of the Trial Court was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the additional complaint was filed on 01.02.2019 itself and since the application for bail under Section 167(2), CrPC was not disposed of by the time the additional complaint was filed, the Appellant could not take advantage of the fact that he had filed his bail petition prior in time. The High Court further reasoned that the Court of Session conducts work from the time it sits till the time it rises and hence the Appellant could not avail of any specific benefit for having filed the application at 10:30 a.m. inasmuch as the additional complaint was lodged during the course of hearing of the bail application, before the Court rose for the day.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.