The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Public Prosecutor is not merely a post office and “is expected to independently apply his mind to the investigating agency’s request before submitting a report to the court”. The court observed this while setting aside a trial court order rejecting the plea of default bail to an accused in an NDPS case. The bail was denied by the trial court after prosecution sought extension of time for filing challan.
The petitioner, Joginder Singh, had been arrested on January 7 last year under Section 22 C of the NDPS Act registered in Sirsa.
The petitioner, through counsel, Aditya Sanghi, had challenged the trial court order dated October 25, where bail was denied and an application moved by the prosecution for extension of time for filing challan in the drugs recovery case was allowed on the ground that co-accused Pawan was yet to be arrested and report of FSL had not been received.
The bench of Justice Sant Parkash after hearing the matter held that “the provision of NDPS Act clearly shows that there are three conditions, to be satisfied for the court, before granting extension of time to the prosecution for filing final report. Merely filing of an application in this regard does not ipso facto empowers the court to extend the stipulated period for filing challan”.
Justice Sant Parkash added, “A Public Prosecutor is an important officer of the state government and is appointed by the state under the CrPC. The Public Prosecutor is expected to independently apply his mind to the request of the investigating agency before submitting a report to the court for investigation. He is not merely a post office or a forwarding agency.”
He added: “A Public Prosecutor may or may not agree with the reasons given by the investigating officer for seeking extension of time and may find that the investigation had not progressed in the proper manner or that there has been unnecessary, deliberate or avoidable delay in completing the investigation. Thus, for seeking extension of time, the Public Prosecutor after an independent application of mind to the request of the investigating agency, is required to make a report to the court indicating therein the progress of the investigation and disclosing justification for keeping the accused in further custody to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation.”
The Public Prosecutor, the court said, must disclose that “he has applied his mind and was satisfied with the progress of the investigation and considered grant of further time to complete the investigation”.
“The report of the Public Prosecutor, therefore, is not merely a formality but a very vital report because the consequence of its acceptance affects the liberty of an accused,” the court said.
The bench added that in the case in hand, the application for extension signed by the Investigating Officer cannot be construed as a report of the Public Prosecutor….for the reason that Public Prosecutor had only appended his signatures at the bottom of the page. Further, the report did not disclose the progress of investigation, the court observed.
The bench therefore ordered the petitioner/accused to be released on default bail.