TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Singh for petitioner in Crl. M. (M) 3852/2001, was that the offence for which complaint has been filed, admittedly is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. Such an offence is governed by the third and not second entry in Table II of the First Schedule appended to Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, offence being not punishable for a clear period of 3 years. Reliance was placed on the decision in Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT ) of Delhi, 2001 SCC (Cri) 819. To appreciate the said submission, it is necessary to reproduce Table II dealing with classification of offences against other laws :- Offence Cognizable or not Bailable or not By what court triable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shment, would clearly indicate that it refers to the term of sentence of imprisonment which may extend up to the period of punishment provided for the offence(s). Thus, the word 'for' occurring before the words '3 years and upwards but not less than 7 years' in said second entry in Table II would include the offences under other laws wherein punishment may extend up to 3 years. The offences for which punishment provided may not go up to 3 years, only will be governed by third entry in Table II. In Rajeev Chaudhary's case (supra) the question involved before the Supreme Court was in regard to interpretation and construction of the expression 'offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years' occurring in proviso (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operate uptil 12th October, 2001. Gagan Thapar, petitioner-accused No. 2 who put in appearance on 21st July, 2001, on bail application being moved was admitted to interim bail on furnishing bail bond in the said sum which interim bail continued uptil 12th October, 2001. Kuldeep Thapar, petitioner-accused No. 3 appeared on 2nd June, 2001 and on his bail application he was admitted to interim bail on furnishing personal bond in the said amount which interim bail continued up to 12th October, 2001. Interim bail up to this period was not granted on merits. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the said submission advanced on behalf of petitioners that the bail granted to the petitioners by ACMM, New Delhi was regular. To be noted that by the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
