Date Of E-Filing Final Report To Be Taken As Date Of Filing, Not When Papers Are Made Physically Available At Court: Madras High Court

Justice Anand Venkatesh was dealing with a plea challenging a written endorsement of a trial court returning an application for statutory bail on the ground that the charge sheet had already been filed. The prosecution had informed the court that the final report was e-filed two days before the application for statutory bail was moved and thus the indefeasible right did not exist.

The court noted that in this digital era, one could not say that the date on which the papers were physically produced before the court would be taken to be the date of filing and such an interpretation would defeat all the efforts taken to digitise the legal proceedings.

“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 Apex Court and the other High Courts in India to make the entire legal proceedings digital, will be defeated,” the court observed.

Noting that the official website continued to show the date of filing physical papers as the date of filing, the court directed the courts below to ensure that the date of e-filing is shown as the date of filing in the official website to avoid future confusion.

“If e-filing mechanism is officially recognized as a mode of filing, obviously the date of e-filing must be taken to be the date of filing… 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 said.

The court was hearing two petitions in which the statutory bail applications filed by the petitioners who were arrested under the NDPS Act were rejected on the ground that the charge sheets had already been filed. The petitioners argued that there were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on May 18, 2023 and the 180^th day expired on November 13, 2023. Thus, it was submitted that the application filed for statutory bail on November 15 should have been allowed since the final report was also filed on the same day.

The petitioners relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Achpal Alias Ramswaroop and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Enforcement Directorate, Government of India Vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another., etc and argued that in these cases, the Apex Court had disregarded the filing of the complaint through e-mail and had considered only the physical applications. Thus, it was argued that

On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the final report was e-filed on the morning of 13^th November and was taken on file and numbered on 15^th November. Thus, it was argued that the petitioners were not entitled for statutory bail.

When a clarification was sought from the Special Judge, it was informed that the final report was filed with all the relevant documents on 13^th November through e-filing mode and the same was taken cognisance on 15^th November.

After perusing the report, the court was satisfied that the final report was filed on 13^th November. The court also observed that the two judgements relied upon by the prosecution would not be applicable in the present case as in those cases, the e-filing was done on Saturday when the documents were not available in court. In the present case, the court noted that the e-filing was done on Monday and hence the final report along with all the relevant documents would have reached the e-filing section of the court.

Thus, finding no reasons to interfere with the endorsement made by the Special Court, the court dismissed the pleas.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms.P.Kritika Kamal

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 63

Case Title: Varun and another v State

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.901 of 2024