“29.As noted earlier, the only modification made by the larger Bench in the case of Sanjay Dutt to the decision in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur1 is about the mode of service of notice of the application for extension. In so many words, in paragraph 53(2) (a) of the Judgment, this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt held that it is mandatory to produce the accused at the time when the Court considers the application for extension and that the accused must be informed that the question of extension of the period of investigation is being considered. The accused may not be entitled to get a copy of the report as a matter of right as it may contain details of the investigation carried out. But, if we accept the submission of the respondents that the accused has no say in the matter, the requirement of giving notice by producing the accused will become an empty and meaningless formality. Moreover, it will be against the mandate of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of CrPC. It cannot be accepted that the accused is not entitled to raise any objection to the application for extension. The scope of the objections may be limited. The accused can always point out to the Court that the prayer has to be made by the Public Prosecutor and not by the investigating agency. Secondly, the accused can always point out the twin requirements of the report in terms of proviso added by sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the 2015 Act to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of Cr.PC. The accused can always point out to the Court that unless it is satisfied that full compliance is made with the twin requirements, the extension cannot be granted.
