Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010218372025 2025:GAU-AS:13796 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1216/2025 MINARUL HOQUE S/O- LATE NURUL HOQUE. R/O- VILLAGE- DOLBARI, P.S- MORIGAON, DISTRICT- MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J C BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 15.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. J.C Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. This petition under section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Minarul Hoque impugning the order dated 26.06.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in the NDPS Case No.40/2025 corresponding to Morigaon P.S. Case No. 353/2024. 3. Though scanned TCR has not been received but in the context of order passed in B.A No.3236/2025, I am of the opinion that this matter need not be kept pending and can be disposed of. 4. The prescribed statutory period for commercial quantity is 180 days, which is further extendable up to 1 year by the Special Court on a report of the P.P. 5. Referring to the impugned order dated 26.06.2025, the primary contention is that the extension was made after the expiry of 180 days and solely based on the report of the I.O. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that instructions could not be obtained but from the materials and the impugned order, it appears that the order was passed merely on the report of the I.O. 7. Upon perusing the impugned order, I find that it is stated therein that statutory period was over on 25.06.2025 and charge- sheet has not been submitted. From the order, it is also revealed that the I.O had filed report on 25.06.2025. 8. As per the relevant provisions of Section 36A(4) proviso of the NDPS Act - such extension has to be based upon the report of the Public Prosecutor and it is well settled that the report of the I.O Page No.# 3/3 is not a substitute for the statutorily mandated report of the Public Prosecutor. 9. Therefore, in my considered view, the extension was not legally correct and consequently, the said order of extension is hereby set aside. 10. This criminal petition stands allowed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant