DINESH DALMIA versus C.B.I

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1124 · Decided: 18-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DINESH DALMIA 
' 
v. 
C.B.I. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss. 167(2), 309(2) and 173(2) & 
i-
(8)-Remand of accused-Sought uls 167(2) on the plea of further 
c investigation-After filing of chargesheet and cognizance . thereof having 
been taken while the accused was absconding-After expiry of 60 days from 
the date of arrest, accused seeking statutory bail under proviso to s. I 67 
(2)-During pendency of the application seeking bail, Police seeking remand 
u/s 309(2)-Statutory bail denied-In Revision, bail granted-But denied by 
High Court-On appeal, plea that charge-sheet and act of taking cognizance 
D was illegal; and that accused entitled to bail-Held: Accused was not entitled 
to the statutory bail-Jn the facts of the case and prevailing law, chargesheet . 
and act of taking cognizance cannot be held to be illegal-Power of Court 
to direct remand of accused u/s 167 (2) would be attracted where cognizance 
has not been taken and that u/s 309(2) would be attracted where cognizance 
E 
has been taken-In the instant case, cognizance having been taken s. 309 
(2) would be attracted-Right uls I 67 (2) ceases on filing of charge-sheet u/ 
s 173(2)-lt does not revive only because further investigation is pending 
within the meaning of s. 173(8)-The conduct of Police in seeking remand 
under wrong provision would be of no consequence, if in effect the order of 
remand was being passed by the Court u/s 309(2). 
F 
Interpretation of Statutes-Held: A statute must be read in its entirety-
t 
Construction thereof should be made in such a manner, so as to give effect 
to all the provisions thereof 
CBI lodged FIR against appellant and three Companies on a complaint 
G from Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). As the appellant was 
r 
evading arrest, non-bailable warrant was issued. On completion of 
investigation charge-sheet was submitted in terms of s. 173(2) Cr.P.C., 
wherein name of the appellant alongwith the Companies, was mentioned. 
Although statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. accompanied the charge-sheet, the 
_,_ 
H 
1124 
.)......_· 
1 
DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.I. 
1125 
relevant documents could not be filed as the same were sent for examination A 
to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD). However the same 
were filed before the arrest of the appellant. Cognizance was taken by the 
Magistrate. After arrest, appellant was produced before the Magistrate and 
his police custody was granted. After extention, he was handed over to Police 
custody. CBI on the plea of further investigation sought judicial custody of B 
the appellant u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C., on four occasions. Appellant, on expiry of 60 
days from the date of his arrest filed an application for statutory bail in terms 
of proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., on the premises that no further charge-
sheet in respect of the investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. had been filed. During 
pendency of the application, CBI filed application seeking remand of the 
appellant u/s 309(2) Cr.P.C. The application for statutory bail was rejected. C 
Revision Petition of the appellant was allowed. But at the behest of CBI, the 
order in Revision was over-turned by High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the charge-sheet against 
him and cognizance taken thereupon was illegal and invalid and thereby a 
valuable right to be released on bail had been taken away; and that even if the D 
charge-sheet were legal, his right u/s. 167(2) Cr.P.C., continued to remain 
available in the facts of the case. 
CBI contended that charge-sheet having been submitted and cognizance 
having been taken on that basis, the only provision applicable for remand of 
the accused would be Section 309(2) Cr.P.C. Thus even if wrong provision E 
has been mentioned by CBI in its applications for remand, the same by itself 
would not render the order of the court invalid. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A charge sheet is a final report within the meaning of Section 
173 (2) Cr.P.C. It is filed so as to enable the court concerned to apply its mind 
as to whether cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not. 
The report is ordinarily filed in the form prescribed therefor. One of the 
requirements for submission of a police report is whether any offence appears 
F 
to have been committed and, if so, by whom. In some cases, the accused having G 
not been arrested, the investigation against him

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