Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
State Of Maharashtra vs Sharad B. Sarda on 29 November, 1982
13. A contrary view to the aforesaid authority, with which we agree, has been taken by the High Court of Bombay in State of Maharashtra v. Sharad B. Sarda (1983 (2) Cri LC 18) wherein it was held that in a case such as this, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act has no applcation as the Code does not prescribe any time limit for presentation of charge-sheet by the investigation. The learned Judge further ruled that after the expiry of time of 90 or 60 days, the right accruing to the accused is absolute. One of our own Judges in Criminal Misc.
Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan Parida ... vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975
In this regard we may make reference also to Natabar Parida v. State of Orissa. . While considering the scope of the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment at page 1469 (of AIR) : (at p. 1216 of Cri LJ) have made the following observations :
Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Begban vs State Of Gujarat And Another on 18 August, 1965
15. Having given our careful consideration to the facts of the present case, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, the relevant statutes and case law on the subject, we are of the view that under the provision of Section 167(2) of the Code an accused person against whom charge-sheet is not presented before the Court within the period of 90 or 60 days, as the case may be, is entitled to be offered bail as a matter of right. For this there is no requirement of law for him to apply. The bail has to be offered to him and he can only be detained in further custody if he fails to furnish bail. The only provision under which an accused person can be detained thereafter is Section 309 of the Code but for the exercise of that power the pre-requisite is that there must be a charge-sheet pending before the Court. This right of the accused person, therefore, under Section 167(2) of the Code is absolute and indefeasible unless he fails to furnish the bail. We are also in full agreement with the observations made in Noor Mohammad's case (supra) that Section 167(2) of the Code does not cease to apply even if the charge-sheet is submitted after 90 or 60 days and the accused is entitled to ask for the right which had already accrued to him. We are also of the view that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is not applicable in such a situation and it cannot be invoked to defeat the accrued right of an accused person to be freed. We are further of the view that the Magistrates should monitor the remand proceedings during investigation in such a manner so that a full account of the remand. is handy and bail is offered to such accused person at the end of 90 or 60 days, as the case may be. We are giving these reasons in support of our order dt. 30th July, 1986.
H. H. Raja Harinder Singh vs S.Karnail Singh on 20 December, 1956
In Harinder Singh case (Supra) the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 10 of the General Clauses Act ruled that the object of Section 10 is to enable a person to do what he could have done on a holiday, on the next working day. Where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a Court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then according to the section, the act should be considered to have been done within that period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is open. It has further ruled that to attract the application of Section 10 of General Clauses Act all that is requisite is that there should be a period prescribed, and that period should expire on a holiday.