Debi Prosad Dey, J. - (1.) This application under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 20.06.2017, 22.06.2016 and 16.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur in GR Case No. 202 of 2017 arising out of Jhargram Police Station Case No. 41 of 2017 dated 20.03.2017 under Sections 15/16/16A/18/23 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 UAPA) and 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and 5/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jharghram Paschim Medinipur extended the period of detention from 90 days to 180 days and thereafter took cognizance of the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating agency .
(2.) Mr. Chatterjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the application for extension of the period of detention/investigation from 90 days to 180 days has not been filed in strict compliance of Section 43D(2) (b) of UAPA and accordingly the order of extension passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur ought to be set aside. It is further submitted that no sanction was obtained from the competent authority in strict compliance of Section 45(1) (ii) of the UAPA at the time of filing of such chargesheet under UAPA and accordingly the order of taking cognizance ought to be set aside. It is submitted that in fact the prosecuting agency took step with regard to obtaining sanction only after filing of this Criminal Revisional Application and ultimately a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted after obtaining sanction on 27th December 2017 long after filing of the first chargesheet. Mr. Chatterjee has relied on a decision Sharmistha Chowdhury & Arn. V. State of West Bengal & Ors,2017 3 CalCriLR 619. and another decision of the Supreme Court Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2013 6 SCC 348
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State contended that detailed report was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor before the concerned Court and after carefully considering the said report learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had extended the period of detention/investigation in compliance with Section 43 D(2) of UAPA. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no provision or stipulation in the concerned Act that such application has to be made within 90 days and accordingly the order of learned Magistrate cannot be termed to be absolutely illegal. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the state contended that valid sanction was given/obtained in respect of the offences against Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act prior to filing of the charge-sheet and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur has duly taken cognizance of the offences on receipt of the chargesheet. Therefore, the cognizance taken by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur cannot be altogether termed to be illegal. Admittedly no sanction was obtained at the time of filing of such charge-sheet under UAPA but the sanction was obtained on 27.12.2017 and thereafter a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted.;