CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus NAZIR AHMED SHEIKH

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 178 · Decided: 05-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
v. 
NAZIR AHMED SHEIKH 
JANUARY 5, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK , JJ.] 
Code o( Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Sections 20(4), 167(b), 302--lvfurder--Charge-sheet--limitation of one 
year would begin to run and has to be counted .froni next day of the 
arrest--Designated Court not justified in holding tha( charge-sheet not filed 
within the lin1itation prescribed under s.20(4) i.e. one year-Later lUnendment 
for seeking pennission o.f Court for extension of tin1e--Not applicable where 
the arrest "I-Vas 1nade prior to the anrendn1ent. 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 
E 
F 
G 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.12.92 of the Additional Judge 
Designated Court (TADA) in Srinagar in F. No. 1090. 
A. Jayaram, Additional Solicitor General and C.V.S. Rao for the appellant. 
T.K. Gopinath, R. Sasiprabhu and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Though the respondent has been served with notice, he has not been 
either appeared in person or through counsel, we request shri R.S. Sodhi, the 
learned counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. We express our appreciation 
for the valuable assistance rendered by him. The facts fairly arc not in dispute. 
On October 26, 1990, at about 9.30 a.m., Inspector Dharamveer of BSF was 
kidnapped in pursuance of criminal conspiracy by sorne of the accused p{:rsons, 
while he was travelling in a 1nini bus from Nishat to Srinagar. The accused 
Nazir Ahmed Sheikh Goldenter shot him dead from his AD-56 rifle i.o cold 
blood as a result of which, Inspector Dharamveer died instantaneously. During 
-the course of the investigation, the recoveries were made and a confe~sional 
H 
statement under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven-
178 
C.B.I. v. N.A. SHEIKH 
179 
tion) Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act) was recovered. In addition thereto, the 
investigation has collected other evidence. On March 6, 1992, a charge-sheet 
was filed along with a material before the Designated Court explaining the 
reasons for the delay in filing the charge-sheet. By order dated December 29, 
1992, the Designated Court has granted bail to the respondent on the ground 
that since the occurrence had taken place on October 26, 1990 and the charge-
sheet came to be filed on March 6, 1992 without even calling for the relevant 
case diary. Calling that order in question, the. above appeal has been filed. 
It is not in dispute from these facts that the arrest of the respondent came 
to be made on March 8, 1991 and the charge-sheet was filed on March 6, 1992. 
A 
B 
The question is whether the charge-sheet was filed within the time or whether 
C 
the accused is entitled to be enlarged for failure to file the charge-sheet. Section 
20( 4) deals with the modification of the time prescribed unc)er Section 167 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') with regard to the 
filing of the charge-sheet. In view of the fact that the charge-sheet contains a 
charge that the murder of the officer was committed, the accused is liable to 
conviction under S&tion 302 !PC. Clause (b) of Section 167 would apply. It 
says that with ref~rence to sub-section (2) of Section 167 for the words 15 days, 
90 days and 6 months where-ever shall be construed with reference to one year 
and one year respectively as envisaged under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of 
the Act. It is seen that When the accused has been arrested on March 8, 1991. 
D 
the Investigating Officer is enjoined to produce him before the Magistrate 
E 
having jurisdiction within 24 hours from the date of the arrest. Consequently, 
the limitation of one year would begin to run and be counted from next date of 
the arrest, namely March 9, 1991. Since the charge-sheet has been filed on 
March 6, 1992, the Designated Court was not justified in holding that the 
charge-sheet was not filed within the limitation prescribed under sub-section 
(4) of Section 20 of the Act, i.e., one year. The later amendment to the Act 
seeking pern1ission of the Court for extension of the tirne or filing the necessary 
material to show the grounds on which the investigation could not be completed 
within the period has no application since the arrest was made prior to the 
amendment of the Act. 
Under these circumstances, the Designated Court was clearly in error in 
enlarging the accused. The order is accordingly set 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.