G. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) F. I. R. No. 100/88 was lodged at Police station, Gendoli and after investigation the Police submitted challan against Kalu Lal Non-petitioner No. 2 u/s 302 and 430 I. P. C. Kalu Lal moved bail application before the Sessions Judge, who granted the bail application on 7-6-89 on a legal point.
(2.) F. I R. No. 32/89 was lodged at Police station, Talera and after completing the investigation the Police submitted challan against the non-petitioners i. e. Narvel Singh and Gurdev Singh u/s 302 I. P. C. Both the accused submitted bail application which was granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi on 3-6-89 on a legal ground. A report was also lodged and the F. I. R. No. 27/89 at Police station Kotwali Bundi was registered and after completing the investigation the Police submitted challan against Kesar Singh and Munna Joshi u/ss. 307/34, 326, 324 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act. The non petitioners moved bail application which was accepted on 13-6-1989 on a legal ground. In all these cases the ground for accepting the bail applications was that the Police did not submit the challan within 60 days from the arrest of the accused-persons as provided in Section 167 Cr. P. C. The view of the learned Sessions Judge is that initially in this section, theperiod was 60 days, then by the Amendment in the year 1978 the period 90 days was substituted in place on the period of 60 days. Thereafter, by repealing and amending Act, 1988 the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act) 1978, was repealed. Ail these bail applications were disposed of on this legal ground. The complainants in those cases being aggrieved by the order of granting bail moved these petitions u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. As the common question is involved in all these petitions it is proper to dispose of all these cases by this common judgment. In Misc. petition No. 579/89, the non-petitioner No. 2 is Kesar Singh and non-petitioner No, 3 is Munna Joshi Kesar has been served and is represented by Shri A. K Sharma but Shri Munna Joshi has not been served. As the matter involved in all petitions is of a legal question and the other non-petitioners are represented by their Advocates, it is, therefore, thought proper not to wait the service of Munna Joshi but decide this petition also along with other petitions Nos. 575/89 and 576/89 where the service on the non-petitioners is complete. It is not necessary to mention the facts of each case. The cases of Narvel Singh and Gurdev Singh is u/s 302 IPC; case against Kalu Lal is u/s 302 and 430 IPC while the case against Kesar and Munnalal Joshi is u/ss 307/34, 336, 324 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act. It is also necessary to mention that the challan against Kalu Lal has been submitted on the 81st day of his remand. The challan against Narvel Singh and Gurdev Singh was submitted on 65th day of their remand while the challan against Kesar Singh and Munna Joshi was submitted on the 72nd day of their remand. So the position is that the challan in all these cases was submitted after the period of 60 days but before 90 days.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that prior to the amendment of Cr. Procedure Code time of 60 days was provided for filing the challan. THEn this Act was amended in the year 1978 and by that Amendment Act 90 days were substituted in place of 60 days. THEn by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1988 the things specified in the Schedule were repealed to the extent mentioned in the fourth column thereof and by this Act the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 1978 was repealed as a whole. It means that the period for filing challan i. e 60 days which was prior to the amendment in the year 1978 was revised and after this Repealing and Amending Act the position of Section 167 Cr. P. C. comes to the same position which was prior to the amendment of 1978. THE learned Sessions Judge in his order was of the opinion that after Repealing and Amending Act, 1988 the position of Sec. 167 Cr. P. C. is revised and the period for filing challan is 60 days and keeping this amendment Act in mind and interpreting in his own way he granted the bail applications of the accused persons and released them on this technical and legal ground. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in view of section 6a of the General Clauses Act, the repeal shall not affect the contiguous of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal He has also referred to section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1988. This says that the repeal by this Act shall not affect any other enactment in which the repealed enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to; this Act shall not affect the validity, invalidity, effect or consequences of anything done or suffered, or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred, or any remedy or proceeding in respect thereof, or any release or discharge of or from any debt, penalty, obligation, liability, claim or demand, or any indemnity already granted, or the proof of any past act or thing; nor shall this Act, affect any principle or rule of law, or established jurisdiction, form or course of pleading, practice or procedure, or existing usage, custom,. privilege, restriction, exemption, office or appointment, notwithstanding that the same respectively may have been in any manner affirmed or recognised or derived by, in or from any enactment hereby repealed; nor shall the repeal by this Act of any enactment revive or restore any jurisdiction, office, custom, liability, right, title privilege, restriction, exemption, usage, practice, procedure or other matter or thing not now existing or in force. " While pointing section 6-A of the General Clauses Act and section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1988 it was argued that by this Act the enactment shall not affect any other enactment in which the repeal enactment has been applied. It means that by the Amendment Act of 1978 Section 167 Cr. P. C. was amended and in place of 60 days, 90 days were inserted. After this Repealing and Amending Act; the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not be affected at all. The purpose is to remove the burden of the amendments from the main statute by this Repealing and Amending Act as is clear from the First Schedule that number of Acts were repealed. ;