BABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel heard.

(2.) ApplicantTs counsel produces the certified copy of the identification memo which has been filed along with the charge sheet. This copy shows that the applicant had not been identified. Learned Govt. Advocate, however, States that as per his information, the copy is not correct and in the original identification memo, there is a reference about identification of this applicant. He showed to me the copy of the identification memo from the diary. Comparison of the copies shown by the applicants Counsel and the Govt. Advocate indicates that the applicant was identified by other witnesses on the same date though this fact does not find place in the copy produced by the applicants Counsel.

(3.) Another point on which application is pressed is that the charge sheet was field beyond the period of 90 days from the production of the applicant before the Magistrate for remand. Applicant was arrested on 14.9.84. Presumably he was produced before the Magistrate for further remand on 15.9.84. Chare-sheet was filed on 24.12.84. It was filed beyond the period of 90 days. Learned Govt. Advocate invites my attention to section 5 of the M.P. Dacoity Adhiniyam (No. 36 of 1981). Under proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Adhiniyam, the period of limitation is 120 days instead of 90 days as prescribed under section 167(2), Cr. P.C. On the date of arrest and also on the date when the charge sheet was filed, this Adhiniyam was in force and, therefore, the question of grant of bail will be governed prima facie by this proviso.