A First Information Report No.154 of 2020 was registered on 16.06.2020 with Police Station, Special Cell, New Delhi against the respondent for offences under Sections 13/18/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959. Before the expiry of the extended period of investigation which was valid until 11.11.2020, the Public Prosecutor moved another application dated 07.11.2020 requesting for further extension of time for investigation for a period of 30 days as per the provisions contained in section 43D (2) (b) of UAPA.
In the said order of 10.11.2020, although all the reasons mentioned in the application dated 07.11.2020 seeking extension of the period of investigation were mentioned but in the operative portion, the Trial Court noted that the extension had been sought on the ground of obtaining mandatory sanction which was still pending before the GNCT Delhi and had accordingly granted the extension till 30.11.2020.
In this connection, the High Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs The State of Maharashtra and others wherein SLP(Crl.) No.2503/2021
this Court was dealing with the provisions of section 20(4) (bb) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and had observed that the period for granting extension of investigation could not be extended in a casual manner for reasons other than those mentioned in the above noted provision which stated that it could be for completion of investigation only.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/challenge-to-state-governments-directive-for-cadre-merger/
Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. 43 D(2)(b), the extension for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 days for the following reasons: • Completion of the investigation; • Progress in the investigation was explained; and • Specific reasons for detention beyond a period of 90 days. The High Court also committed an error in recording a finding that sanction had already been received prior to the date of making the application for extension in November 2020. However, the sanction under section 45(2) of UAPA was awaited from GNCT Delhi and that the sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act was to be obtained after the results from the FSL was received. The High Court also failed to consider that after completing the investigation, Police report under SLP(Crl.)
No.2503/2021 section 173(2)
CrPC had already been submitted prior to 30.11.2020 which was the last date of the extended period.
Case Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @ LOVELY (2024 INSC 11)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000043-000043 / 2024
