STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. LAXMANSINH CHANDRASINH PADHIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned Counsel Mr. B. B. Naik waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. 1. This Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the State of gujarat against the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2007 passed by learned additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 8, Vadodara in Criminal revision Application No. 206 of 2007, whereby bail has been granted to the respondent in connection with the offence registered with Karjan Police Station bearing C. R. No. 1-42. of 2007, for the offence punishable under Sees. 406, 420, 417, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120b and 114 of the Indian Penal code, mainly for the reason that charge-sheet/challan has not been filed by the police within a period of sixty days, and therefore, bail has been granted to the respondent-accused, under Sec. 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Against this judgment and award dated 30th August, 2007, the State has preferred this Criminal Revision Application for cancellation of bail.

(2.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the applicant-State submitted that :-- against the respondent-accused an offence bearing C. R. No. I-42 of 2007 was registered on 19th February, 2007 at Karjan Police Station, for the offences punishable under Secs. 406, 420, 417, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120b and 114 of the Indian Penal Code;- Thereafter, respondent was arrested on 29th May, 2007;- Allegation against the respondent is that an amount of Rs. 1,08,33,429/- has been misappropriated of the Baroda Central Co-operative bank Ltd. ;- Investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed on 30th July, 2007;- It appears from the facts of the case that the respondent applied for bail under Sec. 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the trial Court on 30th July, 2007;- The charge-sheet was filed on 63rd day, and therefore, it was contended by the respondent before the trial Court that as the charge-sheet is not filed within sixty days, the respondent is entitled to be enlarged on bail under sec. 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;- The trial Court has dismissed this application vide order dated 2nd August, 2007;- Against dismissal of this application, Criminal Revision Application No. 206 of 2007 was preferred by the respondent before learned Additional sessions Judge, Vadodara and it is submitted that the offence is punishable under Secs. 467 and 409, the sentence, can be awarded for less than 10 years also, and therefore, sixty days is the prescribed period for filing of charge-sheet I challan, under Sec. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Charge-sheet is not filed within sixty days, and therefore, the respondent is entitled to be enlarged on bail.- Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara has therefore, granted bail to the respondent, interpreting the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme court and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and observed that charge-sheet/challan ought to have been filed within a period of sixty days and the same has not been filed within prescribed period, and therefore, bail was granted to the respondent.- Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant-State argued out the case in detail and has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh and Ors. v. Jarnail Singh and Anr. , reported in 2006 Cri. LJ 3621, especially in Paras 8, 11 to 14 and has pointed out that in the facts of the present case, if the maximum sentence awardable is life imprisonment, the Court has to look into the maximum sentence and maximum period of ninety days is prescribed for filing of the charge-sheet/challan and not sixty days. This is an error apparent on the face of the judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Vadodara, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Vadodara, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 2369 (Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (N. C. T.) of Delhi) and AIR 2001 SC 1910 (Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra) and has submitted that if the sentence can be awarded less than 10 years, then minimum sentence is to be seen and not the maximum sentence. If the sentence can be awarded from one year to life imprisonment, the Court has to see the fact that if the one year sentence is awarded, the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within a period of sixty days, and therefore, the interpretation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, is absolutely true and correct, and therefore, this Criminal Revision Application preferred by the State deserves to be dismissed.