Madras High Court: In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) to set aside the impugned docket order of the Trial Court, wherein the statutory bail petition filed by the petitioner was returned on the ground that the charge sheet has already been filed by the respondent, N. Anand Venkatesh,J. while refusing to interfere with the impugned order , said the date on which the hard copy is brought before the Court cannot be taken to be the date of filing and in every case, the date of filing can only be the date on which the e-filing is done and that should be incorporated as the date of filing in the official website. This practice has to be consistently followed by all the Courts in order to avoid any future confusion.
The Court took note of the report given by the Special Court and noted that the final report along with all the materials was filed by the prosecution on 13-11-2023 through e-filing platform. Further, this was acted upon, and the final report was taken cognizance on 15-11-2023. Thus, it said that the accused’s expressing doubt regarding the e-filing that took place on 13-11-2023, is unfounded.
Upon enquiry to the Special Court, as to why the date of filing of the final report is shown on the official website as 15-11-2023, when the e-filing was already done on 13-11-2023, the Court noted that in all cases across Tamil Nadu, the date of filing does not reflect the date on which the e-filing is done and the date of filing gets reflected only by taking into consideration the physical availability of the papers in the Court. Therefore, even though the e-filing was done on 13-11-2023, based on the physical availability of the papers before the Judge, the same is incorporated in the official website as the date of filing.
The Court said that if e-filing mechanism is officially recognized as a mode of filing, the date of e-filing must be taken to be the date of filing. At the time of filing, the papers are on a soft copy mode and later, it translates into hard copy. The date on which the hard copy is brought before the Court cannot be taken to be the date of filing and in every case, the date of filing can only be the date on which the e-filing is done and that should be incorporated as the date of filing in the official website. This practice has to be consistently followed by all the Courts in order to avoid any future confusion.
Thus, the Court said that the e-filing was done on 13-11-2023 and the cognizance of the final report was taken on 15-11-2023 and the case was also numbered on the same day.
Concerning the issue that whether the e-filing of the final report will suffice or the Court must deal with the physical papers and only then, it can be construed that the actual filing had taken place, the Court said that the e-filing platform is available to the prosecution to file the final report. This filing is officially recognized to be the date of filing of the final report. The final report along with the materials had reached the e-filing portal of the Special Court on 13-11-2023, which was a working day since it was Monday. In this digital era, it is too late in the day to claim that the e-filing of the final report cannot be construed as the date of filing and it is only the physical availability of papers that should be construed as the actual date of filing. If this interpretation is given, all the efforts that are being taken by the Higher Courts to make the entire legal proceedings digital, will be defeated.
After taking note of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 3 SCC 77 and Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 153, wherein it was held that as per the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) once the charge sheet is filed before the Court within the statutory period, that must be taken to be sufficient compliance with the provision under Section 167 of CrPC. It is immaterial as to whether cognizance of that final report was taken or not within the statutory period.
Thus, the Court refused to interfere with the written endorsement made by the Court below on 15-11-2023, returning the statutory bail application filed by the petitioner.
Moreoever, the Court remarked that Special Courts must get rid of the practice of dealing with the extension petition and the statutory bail petition together. The scope of both these petitions are very different.
The Court directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the Principal District Judges, across Tamil Nadu. It also allowed the petitioner to seek for a regular bail before the Court below.
[Varun v State, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 162, Order dated 01-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate P.Kritika Kamal
For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor A.Damodaran
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
