1984 (12) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication 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. 1954 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 under Section 167(2), Proviso....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the affirmative, then the provisions 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 fell on a holiday (Sunday). The Supreme Court in the case of Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh and others has observed: "Broadly stated, the object of Section 10 is to enable a person to do what he could have done on a holiday, on the next working day, where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a Court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then according to Section, the Act should be considered to have been done within that period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is open. For ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... necessary to refer the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has brought to our notice a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharastra v. Sharan B. Sarada : reported in 1983(2) Cri 254 (short notes) in support of his contention that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act has no application to this case. Unfortunately, the full report is not available in the journal. The reasons which prompted the Hon'ble Court to come to the decision are not available to us. With great respect we are unable to accept the view taken by the Bombay High Court. 4. Viewed from another angle, we are fortified in talking the view in favour of applicability of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act to the facts of t....