N SUREYA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by N.Sureya Reddy and N. Pandeyaa alias Pandeyya Reddy for being enlarged on bail, at the time of argument the learned counsel pressed the application for petitioner No.1, N.Sureya Reddy alone. The sole ground on which the application is filed is that the investigating agency having failed to file the charge-sheet within a period of 90 days from the date of arrest of the petitioners, they are entitled to be released on bail as provided under Section 167(2) proviso (a)(i), Cr.P.C.

(2.) The admitted factual position is that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 8-5-1984 in connection with Chatrapur P.S. Case No.99 of 1984 which is now pending before the Court of Session, Berhampur, in S.C. No.155 of 1984. The charge-sheet was submitted on 6-8-1984, i.e. on the 91st day of arrest. The 90th day from the date of arrest fell on 5-8-1984, a sunday. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions u/s.167(2) proviso (a)(i) have been infringed in the case, the learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the said provisions have been duly complied with. He places reliance on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act (X of 1897), which reads as follows:-

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is, whether Section 10, General Clauses Act or the principles underlying the provisions apply to be present case. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the provision of section 167(2) proviso Cr.P.C. cannot be said to have been infringed, due to filing of the charge-sheet on the 91st day, the 90th day having fallen on a holiday (Sunday). The Supreme Court in the case of Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh, AIR 1957 SC 271, has observed (Para 5) :