2019 Criminal Appeal Nos. 538–539 By itself, Section 212(3) of the 2013 Act does not specify a deadline for the submission of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) examination report. There is no predetermined deadline for finishing the examination that is consistent with fair-minded norms established by common law.
In the instant case titled SFIO v. Rahul Modi, the issue raised for clarification before the Apex Court was:
Whether unlawful detainment is valid or not?
With regard to this issue, the High Court further noted that the illegal detention of the candidates violated the principles of personal freedom cherished under Article 21 of the Constitution and could not be rectified by the subsequent remand orders issued by the responsible official. By means of this SLP, the arrangement made by the Hon'ble High Court on December 20, 2019, was contested. The requirement that the report be accommodated to the government "within such period as may be stipulated within the order" is stated in Section 212(3) of the 2013 Act and is unquestionably registered.
The Supreme Court held that the compliance of sub-section (3) of section 212 of the Act is essentially directive in light of the purpose of the Act as highlighted in Chapter XIV (Sections 206 to 229 of the Act), which deals with matters relating to the review, request an examination of the companies, and Chapter XXIX, which endorses the punishment/penalties for the commission of various offences indicated under the Act.
The Court categorically stated that,
"This Court had categorically laid down that the indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC arises only if the charge-sheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. Reference to cognizance in Madar Sheikh (supra) is in view of the factual situation where the application was filed after the charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance had been taken by the trial court. Such reference cannot be construed as this Court introducing an additional requirement of cognizance having to be taken within the period prescribed under proviso (a) to Section 167(2), CrPC, failing which the accused would be entitled to default bail, even after filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period".