Sohan Lal vs State of U.P.

B.P. Singh, J.—This is an application in revision against the order dated 2-1-1990 passed in Crime No. 1093 of 1989 u/s 306/498A IPC P.S. Colonelganj, district Allahabad.

The applicant was arrested by the Police of P.S. Colonelganj on 22-10-1989 in connection with the Crime No. 1093/89 under Sections 306/498A IPC. The applicant was sent to jail lock up on 22-10-89. Since more than 60 days had passed and the Police had not completed the investigation in the case, an application u/s 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail. The learned Chief judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the applicant because he was of the view that the charge-sheet in the case concerned could be filed within 90 days.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sohan Lal has come in revision.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and I have gone through the record of the case.

It is not disputed that the applicant was sent to jail on 23rd October, 1989. An application was moved on his behalf u/s 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure after 60-days on the ground that the period of 60-days was over and the police had not completed the investigation by that time.

Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure so far as it is relevant for the purposes of this case is as under:

Provided that-

(a) the Magistrate may authorise 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 so but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding:

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(is) 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 shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does not furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter.

Thus, the only question involved in this case is as to what is the correct interpretation of the words "a term of not less than ten years."

Maxwell in his well known work-Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edition page 28), has observed:

The first and most elementary rule of construction is that it is to be assumed that the words and phrases of technical legislation are used in their technical meaning if they have acquired one, and otherwise in their ordinary meaning, and the second is that the phrases and sentences are to be construed according to the rules of grammar.

Thus, the words appearing in any section of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be given their plain and ordinary dictionary meaning.

Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in police custody, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. But the total period of detention shall not exceed ninety days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with deatb/imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. If the investigation relates to any other offence, the total period of detention shall not exceed sixty days. The words "irnprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" mean that the minimum punishment should be ten years. The term ''not less than ten years'' is not to be confused with the term upto ten years''. In a case where the maximum punishment is upto ten year, the period of detention, which is permissible u/s 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure is only sixty days.

In the present case, the investigation relates to the offences under Sections 306 and 496A IPC An offence u/s 306 IPC is puhishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, the sentence which can be passed for an offence u/s 306 IPC may extend to ten years and it cannot be said that the offence u/s 306 IPC is not punishable for a term of not less than ten years. Section 498A IPC does not pose any problem, as the maximum sentence provided for the same is only three years. Thus, the period of detention which is permissible in the present case where the applicant is charged for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is only sixty days.

In this view of the matter, the application for revision is allowed. The order dated 2-1-1990 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, is set aside.