9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of the expression "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" in proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in context of the expression "imprisonment which may extend to ten years" in Section 386 of the IPC.
Analysis: 1. The case involved the interpretation and construction of the expression "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" in proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the expression "imprisonment which may extend to ten years" in Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The appellant was arrested for offences under Section 386, 506, and 120-B of the IPC. The Metropolitan Magistrate released the accused on bail as the charge-sheet was not submitted within 60 days as required by Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application, stating that for an offence under Section 386 IPC, the sentence could be up to 10 years RI, applying clause (i) of the proviso (a) to Section 167(2). The High Court held that the expression "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years" in clause (i) of the proviso to Section 167 meant an offence punishable with a specified period of at least ten years. 3. Section 167 of the CrPC authorizes Magistrates to detain accused persons pending investigation. Proviso (a) of Section 167(2) limits the detention period based on the offence's severity. The interpretation of "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" is crucial in determining the detention period. Section 386 of the IPC deals with extortion and provides for imprisonment up to ten years. The court clarified that "not less than ten years" implies a clear period of ten years or more for the offence to fall under clause (i) of the proviso. 4. The court emphasized that for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term "not less than 10 years," the accused can be detained for up to 90 days, while for other offences, the period is 60 days. The judgment highlighted that the expression "not less than" signifies a minimum sentence of 10 years or more, excluding offences with imprisonment less than 10 years. As Section 386 allows imprisonment ranging from a minimum to a maximum of 10 years, it does not mandate a minimum sentence of 10 years. 5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the expression "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" in the context of Section 167(2) proviso (a) does not apply to offences where the punishment is imprisonment for less than ten years. The judgment clarified the distinction between offences warranting a minimum of ten years' imprisonment and those with a maximum sentence of ten years, such as in the case of extortion under Section 386 of the IPC.
|
