TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'PC Act') against the petitioner herein. A regular case was, therefore, registered and entrusted to a Dy. Superintendent of Police for investigation. After the investigation the petitioner was arrested on 11th May 2006. He was produced before the learned Special Judge, New Delhi doing CBI cases on 12th May 2006 and was remanded to police custody upto 16th May 2006. On 16th May 2006 the petitioner was sent to judicial remand upto 30th May 2006. On 25th May 2006 he applied for regular bail which was dismissed by the Special Judge on 2nd June 2006. Likewise, second bail application was also dismissed on 9th June 2006. The judicial remand of the petitioner in the meantime was extended from time to time. On 5th July 2006 the petitioner filed an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. stating that period of 60 days from the date of arrest would expire on 9th July 2006. Prosecution, on the other hand, disputed this. A charge-sheet was filed on 11th July 2006. Thereafter application was taken up for hearing on 12th July 2006 and order dated 13th July 2006 has been passed dismissing the application. 3. Perusal of the impugned order wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded and date of filing of the challan is to be included. 5. The combined reading of the aforesaid two judgments would make it clear that the period is to be counted not from the date of arrest but from the date of remand. Further, for the purpose of calculation the date on which remand is taken is to be excluded and the date on which challan is filed in the Court is to be included. When 60 days period of counted in this manner, this period expired on mid-night of 11th July 2006 and thus, filing of the challan on 11th July 2006 was within 60 days. Conceding this legal position, learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments on this application did not press this issue. 6. This brings us to the second contention raised before the learned trial Court which was vehemently argued before this Court as well. There is no dispute on facts. Though the challan was filed on 11th July 2006, it was not accompanied by sanction of the competent authority. Whether such a challan/charge-sheet has to be treated as defective and incomplete or sanction can be filed subsequently as well, is the issue. 7. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents, namely, Official Secrets Act, Maritime Zones Act as well as the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons were arrested on 11th January 1993. The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet on 8th March 1996 before the Magistrate including offence under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Thereafter, investigation was made over to CBI as per notification dated 15th March 1996 and in the re registered case offences under the Maritime Zones Act and the Foreigners Act were also included. On 10th April 1996, a 'Charge Report' was filed under Sections 7(4)(c) and 7(5) and Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Maritime Zones Act. In this charge-sheet, accused were not charge sheeted for offences under Section 3(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act or under the IPC. Along with the charge report, sanction order dated 9th April 1996 to prosecute the petitioners under Section 14 of the Maritime Zones Act was produced, but the CBI had not obtained sanction to prosecute against accused 1 to 6 either under the Foreigners Act or the Official Secrets Act. The Court formulated the question as to whether charge report filed by the CBI on 10th April 1996 could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused of offence punishable under Sections 153-A and 153-B of the IPC. He along with other accused persons was produced before the Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody. This was extended from time to time. On certain dates the judicial custody was extended even when the accused was not produced. In these circumstances, contention was raised by the petitioner that without the production of the petitioner the CJM could not have extended the judicial custody/remand and such orders were null and void having regard to the provisions contained in Clause (b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. On the other hand, submission of the Govt. Counsel was that provision could not be literally interpreted ignoring the fact that there will be several circumstances in which it would be possible to produce the accused before the Court. The question, therefore, before the Court was as to whether there could be an extension of judicial custody/remand without the production of accused before the Magistrate. This question is specifically formulated in para-7 of the judgment and answered in favour of the petitioner. Obviously, this judgment is not relevant for our purposes. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
