Statutory Time Limit For Filing Final Reports Must Be Strictly Complied With: Madras High Court Directs Police To File All Final Reports Online
Observing that there is a trend of delay in filing of the Final Report after the statutory time limit, the Madras High Court has directed the Police to file all final reports On-line. Such On-line filing of final reports by the Police, will be in compliance with the requirements of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019. The court further clarified that the mandatory period...
Observing that there is a trend of delay in filing of the Final Report after the statutory time limit, the Madras High Court has directed the Police to file all final reports On-line. Such On-line filing of final reports by the Police, will be in compliance with the requirements of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019. The court further clarified that the mandatory period for filing the final report shall apply even in cases where the accused has already been detained. Further, the court also directed that the Judicial Magistrates / Criminal Courts shall not return the final reports for such non-enclosure of the reports which are listed out as Nos.(vii) to (x) & (xxix) of Sub Rule 7 of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.
The court directed the Director General of Police to issue required Circulars to respective Police Stations to ensure compliance of the orders. The court further directed the registry to place the order before the Chief Justice to enable the Registry to issue appropriate circulars to the criminal courts.
The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice N Sathish Kumar was considering a case of detention under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. The petition was filed by the detenu's daughter.
It was contented by the petitioner that there was a gross violation of the procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. It was submitted that after the Detention Order was passed on 15.07.2021, the petitioner had made a representation dated 31.07.2021 which was received on 05.08.2021 and remarks were called for by the Government on 05.08.2021. Later, the representation was rejected on 28.10.2021 with an unexplainable delay of 41 days after excluding the Government Holidays.
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that though there was a delay in considering the representation, the impugned detention order could not be quashed on that sole ground. He further argued that there was no prejudice was caused to the detenu and there was no violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The court relied on the decisions of Supreme Court and Madras High Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan and others (1980) and Sumaiya v. The Secretary to Government (2007) respectively where the courts have clearly established that any inordinate or unexplainable delay on the part of the government, however little the delay might have been, is illegal and is sufficient to set aside the order of detention.
In the matter at hand also, there was an unexplainable delay of 41 days for considering the representation. Thus, considering that the procedural safeguards were violated, ythe court directed the Detention Order to be quashed.
Case Title: I Nisha v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors
Case No: H.C.P (MD) No. 1498 of 2021
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G Karuppusamy Pandian for Mr. P Senguttarasan
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. S Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 158