(a). The offence under section 306 is punishable with a maximum
term of 10 years. The punishment for lesser term can certainly be
awarded for the said offence. Therefore, in cases relating to the
investigation into an offence punishable under section 306 of IPC
subclause (ii) of clause (a) would be applicable; and consequently,
the maximum period during which the detention of offender can be
authorized, pending investigation, would be 60 days (and not 90
days). The learned Magistrate was, therefore, right in releasing the
petitioner on bail.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
Shakil Khan Yasin Khan
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17 OF 2014
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Citation; 2014 ALL MR(CRI)929
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
Dated: January 09, 2014
By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is
questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and order
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal
Application No.101/2013, whereby he cancelled the bail granted to
the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule and
directed the petitioner to be arrested and taken in custody. The bail
that was granted to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate was
under clause (a) of the first proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the
The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2013 in the course
3.
Code”), which is popularly termed as “default bail”.
of investigation into C.R. No. 153/2013 registered at Deopur Police
Station with respect to the offence punishable under section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 34 of IPC. He was
produced before the Magistrate on 26.09.2013 and thereafter was
being remanded into police custody from time to time. On
25.11.2013, the petitioner made an application stating that he had
been remanded in custody for a period of 60 days already, and that,
the investigation had not been completed; and that, therefore, he
should be released in accordance with subclause (ii) of clause (a) of
the first proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code. The
Magistrate held that the petitioner was entitled to be released on
bail in accordance with the aforesaid provisions and directed his
release on bail.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate,
the State filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge,
which as aforesaid, was allowed by him, cancelling the bail granted
to the petitioner and directing his fresh arrest and detention in
According to the learned Magistrate, the petitioner’s
4.
custody.
case was covered by subclause (ii) of clause (a) of the first proviso
to subsection (2) of section 167 of the Code. According to the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner’s case was covered
by subclause (i) of the said clause.
5.
Section 306 of IPC provides that a person committing
the offence thereunder ‘shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.’ Thus the offence described in section 306 of IPC is
punishable with a term of imprisonment upto 10 years. In other
words, the imprisonment, that can be awarded to the offender,
would be for a term of maximum 10 years.
6.
The first proviso to section 167 (2) of the Code puts
restrictions on the period for which detention of an accused person
in custody pending investigation can be authorized. It provides that
“ ...... no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused
person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding:
ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence
(i)
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term of not less than ten years’. (ii) sixty days, where the investigation
relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of
ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall
be released on bail .......... .”
7.
The question would be about the interpretation of the
phrase “imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years” occurring
in subclause (i) of clause (a). In other words, where the
investigation relates to an offence for which punishment for a term
of imprisonment upto the period of 10 years can be awarded,
whether subclause (i), or subclause (ii) would be applicable, is the
question. Whether an offence for which a maximum term of
imprisonment of 10 years can be awarded would be an offence
punishable with imprisonment for a ‘term of not less than
10 years’ within the meaning of the said sub-clause (i), is
8.
the question.
This issue no longer res integra. It has already been
answered by the Apex Court of India in the case of Rajeev
Chaudhary V/s State (N.C.T.) of Delhi reported in 2001 AIR (SC)
2369. In that case, the appellant before the Supreme Court was
accused of having committed an offence punishable under section
386 of IPC (and other offences providing for lesser punishment).
Section 386 lays down that the offender ‘shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
10 years.’ In that case, the appellant before the Supreme Court was
released by the Magistrate on bail holding that the chargesheet had
not been submitted within 60 days. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge, when the matter was brought before him by way of an
application for revision, held that since the sentence could be ‘upto
10 years’, subclause (i) of clause (a) of the first proviso to section
167(2) would be applicable. He set aside the order passed by the
Magistrate releasing the accused on bail. When this order passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge was challenged before the High Court,
the High Court held that “the expression ‘not less than’ would mean
imprisonment should be 10 years or more and would cover only
those offences for which punishment could be imprisonment for a
clear period of 10 years or more.” When the matter was brought
before the Supreme Court of India, Their Lordships held that the
expression ‘not less than’ as appearing in clause (i) would mean
imprisonment should be 10 years or more and would cover only
those offences for which punishment could be
imprisonment for a
clear period of 10 years or more. Their Lordships categorically
held that cases of offences for which punishment could be
imprisonment for less than 10 years would be governed by clause
(ii) of section 167.
9.
Similar view was taken in the case of Nijamuddin
Mohammad Bashir Khan V/s State of Maharashtra reported in
2006 B.C.I. 160 by a Division bench of this Court by referring to
several decisions on this aspect including the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Rajeev Chaudhary (supra).
10.
A perusal of the aforesaid decisions leaves no manner of
doubt as to how the phrase ‘offence punishable with
imprisonment for not less than 10 years’ appearing in subclause (i)
of clause (a) of the first proviso to section 167(2) is to be
interpreted. The different interpretations of this phrase arise on
account of the fact that an offence is usually said to be ‘punishable’
with a certain term of imprisonment, by referring to the maximum
term of imprisonment, that can be awarded for such offence. For
instance, the offence of theft is said to be ‘punishable’ with
imprisonment for three years, which is the maximum imprisonment,
that can be awarded for the said offence under section 379 of IPC.
Therefore, there is tendency of interpreting the phrase ‘offence
punishable with imprisonment for not less than 10 years’ in a
manner so as to cover an offence for which imprisonment for a
maximum term of 10 years can be awarded. However, in view of the
interpretation of the said term, as done by Their Lordships of the
Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Chaudhary (supra) in the context
of subclause (i) of clause (a) of first proviso to section 167 of the
Code, it is clear that only the offences which are punishable with
death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of
‘minimum 10 years
’ would be governed by subclause (i) of clause
(a). The offence under section 306 is punishable with a maximum
term of 10 years. The punishment for lesser term can certainly be
awarded for the said offence. Therefore, in cases relating to the
investigation into an offence punishable under section 306 of IPC
subclause (ii) of clause (a) would be applicable; and consequently,
the maximum period during which the detention of offender can be
authorized, pending investigation, would be 60 days (and not 90
days). The learned Magistrate was, therefore, right in releasing the
It is surprising that inspite of the clear legal position and
11.
petitioner on bail.
the clarity in the well reasoned order passed by the Magistrate, the
Additional Sessions Judge set it aside and cancelled the bail granted
to the petitioner. Infact, the impugned order makes a curious
reading. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had understood the
question needing determination properly and had referred to the
decision in the case of Rajeev Chaudary (supra). He reproduced
the observations made by Their Lordships of Supreme Court of India
in para no.6 of the said reported judgment. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge then observed that the decision was applicable to the
case before him and further observed that it could not be said that
minimum sentence would be 10 years or more. He also observed
that the imprisonment could vary from ‘minimum to maximum 10
years’, and that, it could not be said that ‘the imprisonment
prescribed is not less than 10 years’. Strangely, thereafter he
upto 90 days and not 60 days.
12.
observed that therefore, the Magistrate could detain the accused
Either the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
inserted the observations made by Their Lordships of Supreme Court
of India in para no.6 of the judgment in the case of Rajeev
Chaudhary (supra) to be reproduced in his order without reading
the same, or he has not understood the same inspite of reading it.
Any way, the impugned order is clearly contrary to law.
13.
The same, therefore, needs to be set aside by exercising the
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
14.
The Petition is allowed.
The order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Dhule is quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule is restored.
The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
16. Rule made absolute accordingly.
15.
Sd/
( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )
No comments:
Post a Comment