Read Time: 07 minutes

Laying down a significant proposition of law, Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a judicial magistrate is not competent to extend the time period for filing of a charge sheet in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967.

The Three-Judge Bench of Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi said that only a special court designated under UAPA will be authorised to deal with the issue of extending the time for filing of charge sheets in such cases.

The Apex court said that under the UAPA a “court” has to be construed as a special court, or a sessions court in the absence of a special court. Court added that it cannot include a “magistrate” as mentioned under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

An appeal was filed by four accused persons who were arrested under UAPA. The appeal was against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which upheld the denial of bail by a court in Bhopal to the accused person.

Before the Bhopal Court, the accused had pleaded for default bail on the grounds that the police had failed to conclude its probe and submit a charge sheet within the stipulated period of 90 days. In March 2014, the court rejected their bail plea on the ground that a magistrate extended the time for filing of the charge sheet in their case from 90 days to 180 days.

Madhya Pradesh High Court also upheld the Bhopal Court order in September 2017.  

On Tuesday before the Apex Court, senior counsel Siddharth Dave, appearing for the accused, contended against the order of extension of time stating that a judicial magistrate is not competent to examine a request for extension of time in UAPA cases.

He contended that “Court” had to be understood in light of Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA which means a court that can try such cases whereas UAPA cases cannot be tried by a Magistrate.

However, being called to assist the Court as amicus curiae, Additional Solicitor General Suryaprakash V Raju objected to the contention raised stating that a magistrate is equally entitled to extend the time period for a charge sheet.

He stressed that Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. stands modified by Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA, which entitles a court to give time to investigators the maximum period of 180 days for filing the charge sheet instead of the usual 90 days.

ASG also made a suggestion before the Bench to refer the matter to a larger bench of five judges for an authoritative interpretation of what a “court” would mean. However, the court rejected so.

The three-judge Bench held that in so far as time to complete an investigation is concerned, such a power of a magistrate, so as to extend the time for filing of the charge sheet under UAPA, is non-existent. The court said that while doing so the magistrate will not be within his jurisdiction.

Court added that in terms of UAPA, only a competent authority can consider such a request which includes only a special court or a sessions court, in absence of a notification for a special court.