BHUPINDER SINGH AND ORS. versus JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 13-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BHUPINDER SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. 
' 
JULY 13, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 304B-Ojfence under-Permissible period 
for filing of challan in Court-Held: Is 90 days and not 60 days-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 197 3-Section 167 (2), proviso. 
Words and Phrases-Word "punishable"-Meaning of 
Appellants were arrested for offences punishable under Section 304B, 
IPC. They filed application praying for grant of bail on ground that the challan 
A 
B 
c 
was not filed in Court in time. Magistrate rejected the application holding D 
that the challan was presented in Court pri~r to completion of 90 days and 
therefore within the prescribed period. But the Sessions Judge granted bail, 
holding that in relation to Section 304(8), IPC permissible period for filing 
of challan would be 60 and not 90 days. High Court by referring to the proviso 
to sub-section (2) ofS. 167 CrPC however held that the period during which 
the challan has to be filed is 90 days and not 60 days. Therefore, the order E 
granting bail to the appellants was set aside. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether in a case involving offence punishable under Section 3048 IPC, the 
period for filing challan is 90 days or 60 days. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. consists of 
three parts. The first part relates to power of Magistrate to authorise detention 
of the accused person. This part consists of two sub-parts. In positive terms 
it prescribes that no Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in G 
custody, under sub-section (2)(a) for a total period exceeding (i) 90 days where 
the investigation relates to an offence punishable under death, imprisonment 
for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years (ii) 60 days 
where the investigation relates to any other offences. Thus the period of90 
513 
H 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A days is applicable to cases where the investigation relates to the three 
categories of offences which are punishable with (i) death, (ii) imprisonment 
for life; or (iii) imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. The 
question is whether Section 304(8) is an offence "punishable" with 
imprisonment for life. 1518-D-FI 
B 
2.1. A bare reading of Section 304(8) IPC shows that whoever commits 
"dowry death" in terms of Section 304(8) IPC shall be punished with an 
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may 
extend to imprisonment for life. In other words, the minimum sentence is 7 
years but in a given case sentence of imprisonment for life can be awarded. 
C What should be the adequate punishment in a given case has to be decided by 
the Court on the basis of the facts and circumstances involved in the 
particular case. 1518-C; 519-C-D) 
2.2. The stage of imposing a sentence comes only after recording the 
order of conviction of the accused person. The significant word in the proviso 
D to sub-section (2) of Section 167 CrPC is "punishable". The word 
"punishable" as used in statutes which declare that certain offences are 
punishable in a certain way means liable to be punished in the way designated. 
It is ordinarily defined as deserving of or capable or liable to punishment, 
capable of being punished by law or right, may be punished or liable to be 
punished, and not must be punished. (519-D-E) 
E 
2.3. Where minimum and maximum sentences are prescribed both are 
imposable depending on the facts of the cases. It is for the Court, after 
recording conviction, to impose appropriate sentence. It cannot, therefore, be 
accepted that only the minimum sentence is imposable and not the maximum 
F sentence. Merely because minimum sentence is provided that does not mean 
that the sentence imposable is only the minimum sentence. The High Court's 
view in the impugned order that permissible period of filing of challan is 90 
days is the correct view. (520-B-CI 
State v. B.B. Singh, (2005) I Chandigarh law Reporter 135; Amer v. 
G State of Karnataka, (2005) 1 Recent Criminal 107; Nadeem Ahmed v. State, 
(2004) Cr.L.J. 4798 and Sunil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2003) 
3 RCR (Criminal) 135, overruled. 
Keshav Dev and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) Cr.L.J. 3306; State 
of Himachal Pradesh v. Lal Singh, (2003) Cr.L.J. 1668 and Ku/deep Singh v. 
H State of Punjab, RCR (Criminal) 599, approv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.