Criminal Misc. No.M-17105 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-17105 of 2008 Date of decision : 24.10.2008 Sukhjinder Kaur .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.. Veneet Sharma, Advocate the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner, a female, is being prosecuted ( in case FIR No. 251 dated 3.7.2007 under Sections 20,21,22,61,85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The challan against her was not filed within a period of 180 days, as stipulated in sub Section 4 of Section 36-A of the Act. She claimed entitlement for release on bail on that account only, That plea of hers was declined by the learned Special Judge, Amritsar by observing that the recovered contraband being of commercial character, does not enable the petitioner to get over the restrictive provisions of Sections 36-A and 37 of the Act. The Investigating Officer did indeed file a plea (Annexure P-1) dated 4.6.2008 for the extension (by six months) for filing of challan. That plea of his drew sustenance from the proviso to Sub Section 4 of Section 36-A of the Act which reads as under:- Criminal Misc. No.M-17105 of 2008 -2- **** “36A. Offences triable by Special Courts:...... xx xx xxx (4) ........ Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period upto one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eight days.” Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the time for filing of charge sheet could indeed by extended by the Court but only on the request of the Public Prosecutor and not on the request of the Investigating Officer. In support of the advocated view, reliance is placed upon, the ruling rendered by Single Bench of this Court in Jaswinder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 2005 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 663 and Iqbal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 663. The plea is resisted by the learned State counsel who draws sustenance from an equi Bench ruling rendered by this Court and reported as Chander Sain Vs. State of Haryana 1995 Criminal Law Journal 3160. Insofar as the judicial pronouncement in Chander Sain's case (supra) is concerned, it does not appear to have dealt with the controversy about whether an extension plea filed by the Investigating Officer was competent or not. On the other hand, the sustenance drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners from Jaswinder Singh's case and Iqbal Singh's case (supra) is in order. Those two judicial pronouncements dealt with the point in issue. Criminal Misc. No.M-17105 of 2008 -3- **** As in the present case, the challan was not filed within the stipulated period of 180 days and as the request for extension of that period of time had not been made by competent quarters, it has to necessarily follow that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of provisions of sub Section 4 of Section 36-A of the Act. Bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. October 24, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE