LexRAJEEV CHAUDHARY versus STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJEEV CHAUDHARY v. STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI ~ MAY 4, 2001 B [M.B. SHAH AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 167(2) Proviso (a)(i)- Applicability of-Expression "offence punishable wUh. imprisonment for a ~- ~ c term of not less than ten years"-Connotation of-.Held, inapplicable to S. 386 of J.P C. which prescribes punishment which may extend to ten years-- Penal Code, 1860-S. 386. Words and Phrases "Offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten D years"-Meaning of in the context of S. 167(2) Proviso (a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. "Imprisonment which may extend to ten years"-Meaning of in the ~ context of S.386 of the Penal Code, 1860. E Appellant, arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 386, 506 and 120B of IPC, was released on bail under S.167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Magistrate on the ground that chargesheet was not filed within 60 days. On revision, Additional Sessions Judge set aside the bail order holding that for an offence under Section 386 ' ' F IPC, period of sentence may extend upto 10 years and hence clause (i) of r,...,~ proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code providing detention upto a period of 90 days would be applicable. However, on challenge High Court set aside the order of Additional Sessions Judge. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD : 1.1. Under Section 386 IPC, imprisonment can vary from minimum to a maximum of 10 years and thus, it cannot be said that imprisonment prescribed is not less than 10 years. Thus, the proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, would not be applicable --- H to the offences under Section 386 IPC. [511-D-F] 508 RAJEEV CHAUDHARY v. STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI [SHAH, J.j 509 ,, 1.2. Under S.167(2~ proviso (a,'(i~ pending investigation relating to A offence punishable with imprisonment for a term "not less than lO years", the Magistrate is empowered to authorise the detention of the accused in custody for not more than 90 days. For re~t of the offences, period prescribed in 60 days. The expression "not less than" would mean imprisonment should be lO years or more and woold cover only those offences for which punishment could be imprisonment for a clear period of lO years or more. Under Section B 386 punishment provided is imprisonment of either description for a· term which may extend to 10 years and also fine. That means, imprisonment r.an bz for a clear period of .10 yea~s or less. Hence, it could not be Said that minimum sentence would be io years or more. [509-H; 510-A-C] c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 606 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.2000 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. M. (M) No. 2532 of 1999. Dr. Krishan Singh Chaudhan (AC.) for the Appellant. Kailash Vasdev, K.C. Kaushik for D.S. Mehra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Leave granted. D E Short question involved in this appeal is with regard to the interpretation and construction of the expression "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" occurring in proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in context of the expression "imprisonment which may extend to ten years" occurring in Section 386 of the IPC. · F Appellant was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 386, 506 and 120-B of the I.P.C. He was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 31.10.1998 and was released on bail by order dated 2.1.1999 by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that G charge-sheet was not submitted within 60 days as provided under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. That order was challenged before the Sessions Judge, New Delhi by filing Criminal Revision No.22of1999. By judgment and order dated 18.8.1999, the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi allowed the said revision application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that for an offence under Section 386 IPC, period of .~entence H 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R. ... A could be up to IO years RI. Hence, clause (i) of the proviso (a) to Section 167 (2) would be applicable. He, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate releasing the accused on bail. That order was challenged before the High Court by the accused. The High C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.