STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SUBASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 in Cr.P.No. 923/1990 are the applicants in I.A.III filed under Section 362 read with Sections 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). They have filed I.A.III praying for re -calling and reviewing the order dated 27 -11 - 1990 by which the said Criminal Petition filed by the State was allowed and bail granted to the respondents in Cr.P.No. 923/1990 and petitioners in I.A.III by the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga (for short 'the Sessions Judge') was cancelled with liberty to the said respondents -accused to file a bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 439 of the Code praying for their release on bail.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as under:

(3.) THE main point that is urged in I.A.III is that this Court has taken an erroneous view of the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code while passing the order dated 27 -11 -1990 inasmuch as the words "sixty" days originally occurring in Section 167(2) were substituted by the words "Ninety days" by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1978 (for short the Amending Act'.) and the whole of the said Amending Act had been subsequently repealed by the Parliament by enacting the Repealing and Amending Act, 1988 (for short the Repealing Act') and, therefore, the law that was prevailing on the date of order of the learned Sessions Judge granting bail to the respondents enjoined on the prosecution to file charge -sheet within "sixty days" from the date of arrest of an accused and if charge - sheet is not filed within the said period of "sixty days" the accused was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. That was also the argument that was strongly pressed by N.B. Vishwanath, appearing for Sri M.M. Jagirdar, learned Counsel for the respondents -applicants in I.A.III.