2014 (9) TMI 1284 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular bail - 12 plastic bags were recovered while checking trenches and the same were supposedly be containing narcotic substance - commercial quantity of narcotic substance - HELD THAT - Section 173(i) of the Cr.P.C. clearly shows that the investigation is to be completed without any unnecessary delay and as per provisions contained under Section 173(ii) of the Cr.P.C. the challan is to be filed on completion of investigation only and not prior to that. Thus it is clear that the trial Court is to accept the challan only on completion of investigation and by considering that all allegations levelled in the FIR have been investigated completely and charge can be framed only after considering the complete investigation report. In the present case the charge has been framed against the petitioner without obtaining Chemical Examiner s Report and in the absence of Chemical Examiner s Report in case of NDPS Act it cannot be said as to whether the substance found in the bags recovered from the petitioner was a narcotic substance or not. In the absence of CFSL report the trial Court cannot take cognizance of the offence and in the absence of Chemical Analysis Report the charge sheet/challan cannot be said to be completed. Failure to file complete charge-sheet within a prescribed period confers on the accused right to be released on bail and the court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence on incomplete charge-sheet. Charge sheet is not complete unless it is accompanied by requisites contemplated under Section 173(5) of the Code. In the present case the incomplete challan has been presented without having any Chemical Examiner s Report and even the charges were framed as the Chemical Examiner s Report is of subsequent date. The petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2013. The trial Court is directed to send its report explaining therein as to how the charges have been framed without having any Chemical Examiner s Report as the Chemical Examiner s Report is of subsequent date of the order of framing of charge. The necessary explanation be submitted before this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Adjourned to 30.10.2014.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under NDPS Act based on alleged false implication and incomplete investigation report.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under the NDPS Act, alleging false implication without substantial evidence connecting him to the crime. The defense argued that the petitioner was wrongly implicated with mala fide intentions, as the alleged recovery did not belong to him, and he was not found in conscious possession of the contraband. Moreover, the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were allegedly not complied with. The defense highlighted that the petitioner was not a previous convict under the NDPS Act, further questioning the validity of the charges against him.

The State counsel did not dispute the presentation of the challan and framing of charges but acknowledged the discrepancy in dates between the charge framing and the Forensic Science Laboratory report. The court examined the FIR details, emphasizing the circumstances leading to the petitioner's arrest and the recovery of narcotic substances. The court noted the lack of a Chemical Examiner's Report at the time of charge framing, raising concerns about the completeness of the investigation process.

The court delved into the legal framework governing investigations under the Cr.P.C., particularly focusing on Section 173 regarding the police report on completion of investigation. The court emphasized the importance of completing the investigation without delay and forwarding a comprehensive report to the Magistrate for further action. It highlighted the necessity of all essential documents, including reports from forensic laboratories, for a thorough investigation before framing charges.

The judgment concluded that framing charges without a Chemical Examiner's Report in an NDPS case was premature and incomplete. The court directed the trial court to explain how charges were framed without the necessary report and ordered the petitioner's release on bail pending further investigation. The court also issued guidelines for compliance with investigative procedures to prevent similar oversights in the future, emphasizing the importance of due process and complete documentation in criminal cases.