9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned it and submitted the same on 30.9.2013. Though the clerk concerned has not made any endorsement as to when actually the charge sheet was received, but there is endorsement of the Chief Judicial Magistrate which shows that he has mentioned seen on 3.10.2013 and signed at the top of the first page of the charge sheet. Order sheet of the court of the Magistrate also corroborates that on 3.10.2013 the clerk concerned reported to Chief Judicial Magistrate that the charge sheet had already been received. In CHAGANTI SATYANARAYAN VERSUS STATE OF AP. [ 1986 (5) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT] , it has been held by this Court that period of ninety days Under Section 167(2) of the Code shall be computed from the date of remand of the accused and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur, relating to offences punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 27 of Arms Act. He was remanded to judicial custody till 19.7.2013. His remand was extended Under Section 167 of the Code from time to time, and the last remand under said provision was granted till 3.10.2013. On 3.10.2013, the Appellant moved an application Under Section 167(2) of the Code for his release on the ground that the charge sheet has not been filed. On the same day, i.e., 3.10.2013, it was endorsed in the order sheet by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that as per report of the clerk of the Court, charge sheet has already been received, as such, the bail application moved Under Section 167(2) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: 167(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that- (a) The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he accused shall be detained in Custody so long as he does not furnish bail. Explanation II.-If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under Clause (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorizing detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be. Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorized to be in custody of a remand home or recognized social institution. Above Proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code provides that the Magistrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, it was 91st day of detention on 3.10.2013. It is further contended by Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior Counsel, that even Sunday or holiday on ninetieth day cannot deprive the benefit of proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. In support of his arguments he relied upon cases of Powell Nwawa Ogechi v. The State (Delhi Administration) 1986 (3) Crimes 577 and State of Maharashtra v. Sharan B. Sarda 1983 (2) Crimes 254 (Short Note). In Sharan B. Sarda (supra) single Judge of Bombay High Court, and in Powel Nwawa Ogechi (supra) the Division Bench of Delhi High Court took the view that even if last day for filing charge sheet is holiday, the accused cannot be deprived of benefit of Section 167(2) of the Code. 10. Contrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
