ASHOK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law in an application for hail (under section [439 (1) Cr. P.C.] filed by one of the three accused persons, first remanded by the Judicial Magistrate to judicial custody on 23 April 1991, is whether the charge -sheet having been filed on a Monday (22 July 1991), the day falling on 21 July 1991 (a Sunday) has to be included for determining the duration of the applicant's detention in judicial custody under the suh -c1ause (ii) of clause (a) of the proviso to sub -section (2) of section 167, Cr. P.C., 1972, or whether the day falling on 21.7.91 (a Sunday) has to be excluded from consideration in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

(2.) I have heard at length the applicant's learned counsel, Shri J.P. Gupta, the learned panel lawyer for the State, Shri D.R. Sihara, and the complainant, learned counsel Shri K.K. Sharma, who have cited a number of reported decisions to back up their respective stands, as posited in the two clauses of the statement at paragraph 1 (Supra).

(3.) AMONGST the ruling cited by the learned counsel, the following rulings refer provisions of the General Clauses Act (1897). The provisions of the enactment (s) in relation to which the provisions of section 10 of the General Clauses Act (1897) were considered are also being indicated: - 1) Hirinder Singh v. Karnail Singh Section Ss. 81 (1), 37 Proviso (AIR 1957 SC 271) 10 of the Rules under S. 81 (1)