SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Kumar and five others were arrested on 20th August, 1975, for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Rule 43 of the Defence and Internal security of India Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and Section 188 of the I. P. C. Relying on proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Cr. P. C. , 1973, they applied for their release on the ground that they had been under detention for more than 60 days. The relief claimed by them was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala. Feeling aggrieved they moved this court under Section 439 of the Code, read with Rule 184 of the Rules. Before Gujral J. (as he then was) their petition was opposed on behalf of the state on the ground that Rule 184 disentitled them. The question referred to the Full Bench by the learned Judge is:-

(2.) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 4 of the Code provides that all offences under any law, other than the I. P. C. , shall be investigated, enquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Cr. P. C. but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 5 of the Code lays down:--

(3.) AS regards alleged breach of the provisions of Section 188 of the I. P. C. , it has not been disputed before us that the proviso aforesaid of Section 167 of the code governs the case. But as to the Contravention of Rule 43 of the Rules, learned Deputy Advocate General hotly contested before us that Rule 184 of the rules operated as a bar. In order to appreciate the rival contentions the relevant part of Section 167 of the Code may first be set down.