MEGHJI JETHABHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are under-trial prisoners. They have filed the present petition challenging the judgment and order dated 17-9-1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhavnagar rejecting the bail application of the present petitioners. Mr. H. M. Chinoy learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the prosecution had failed to file the chargesheet within 90 days and therefore the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail as a matter of right.

(2.) Mr. S. P. Dave learned A. P. P. does not dispute that the petitioners would be entitled to be released on bail if the chargesheet was filed beyond 90 days. However he has contended that in this case the chargesheet was filed on the 93rd day because the Court was closed on 90 91 and 92nd day. Hence in his submission the prosecution was prevented from filing the chargesheet on the 90th day as the Court was closed. He has therefore submitted that if the Court is closed on 90th day the limitation period would be considered to be within time if it is filed on the next working day. He has relied on this principle of computation which is laid down in the Limitation Act. Mr. Dave has also relied on the provisions of the General Clauses Act which also lays down that if the period of limitation expires on a closed holiday then the next working day would be regarded as within time.

(3.) Mr. Chinoy has submitted that the method of computation in the Limitation Act as well as General Clauses Act do not apply in this case. For this submission he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1986 (3) SCC 141 (154) (Chaganti Styanarayana v. State of A. P.) wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under: