RAJEEV CHAUDHARY Vs. STATEN T C OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The short question involved in this appeal is with regard to the interpretation and construction of the expression offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years occurring in proviso (a) to Sec. 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in context of the expression imprisonment which may extend to ten years occurring in Sec. 386 I.P.C.

(3.) The appellant was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Secs. 386, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. He was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 31-10-1998 and was released on bail by order dated 2-1-1999 by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that charge-sheet was not submitted within 60 days as provided under Sec. 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. That order was challenged before the Sessions Judge, New Delhi by filing Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1999. By judgment and order dated 18-8-1999, the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi allowed the said revision application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that for an offence under Sec. 386 I.P.C., period of sentence could be up to 10 years R.I. Hence, clause (i) of proviso (a) to Sec. 167(2) would be applicable. He, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate releasing the accused on bail. That order was challenged before the High Court by the accused. The High Court referred to its earlier decisions and held that the expression an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years in clause (i) of proviso (a) to Sec. 167 would mean an offence punishable with imprisonment for a specified period which period would not be less than 10 years or in other words would be at least ten years. The words not less than qualify the period. These words put emphasis on the period of ten years and mean that the period must be clear ten years. It was further held that on a plain reading of clause (i) of proviso (a) to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 167 Cr. P.C., there seemed to be no doubt that offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more would fall under clause (i) and offences which are punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years would fall under clause (ii). Hence, the High Court set aside (sic.) the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. That order is challenged in this appeal.