Blog

Materials must be presented to the court to show the progress of the investigation and reasons for the remand or extension of remand is upheld by the Madras High Court in the case of T. Keeniston Fernando v. State of Madras (Crl.A.Nos.393 & 479 of 2022) through Justice P.N. Prakash and Justice RMT Teekaa Raman.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the instant case, the public prosecutor filed a report under the first proviso of Section 43-D (2) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (‘UAPA’) for the extension of the remand period after the Court noted that the ninety days remand anticipated by Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was set to expire on December 31, 2021.

By ruling dated 3.01.2022, the Special Court approved the public prosecutor’s report and prolonged the remand to a new period of 90 days beginning on December 31, 2021. The appellants further claimed that the order from January 3, 2022, was made without hearing from the accused. Thus, a criminal appeal was filed challenging the extension of the remand period from 90 days to 180 days and for grant of bail to the appellants.

JUDGMENT

The claim made by the appellants that the Special Public Prosecutor had not filed a report in accordance with the proviso to Section 43-D(2) is factually incorrect, according to the Court’s analysis of the pertinent records, which show that the report required by the first proviso to Section 43-D(2) of the UAPA has been submitted by the public prosecutor.

The Court cited the ruling in Selvanathan v. State, 1988 in support of its observation that the accused will not be entitled to a copy of the requisition for remand. The Court noted that the appellant submitted an application for default bail on the same day that the NIA finished its investigation and submitted a final report. The current appeal, which contests the ruling from January 3, 2022, was only submitted on April 4, 2022. Therefore, the unassailable right to default bail was terminated once the final report was filed on March 29, 2022.

Referring to the decision in State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd., (1964), it was determined by the Court that even if the language used in the two enactments were identical, which is not even the case here, the same conclusion would not necessarily follow having regard to the differing scopes of the two pieces of legislation. As a result, the criminal appeals were rejected as being without merit.

Accordingly, the Court held that materials must be presented to the court to show the progress of the investigation and reasons for the remand or extension of remand.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NISHTHA GARHWAL

Click here to view the judgment