Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
SHAH, J. Leave granted.
Short question involved in this appeal is with regard to the interpretation
and construction of the expression "offence punishable with imprisonment for
a term of not less than ten years" occurring in proviso (a) to Section 167(2)
of the Criminal Procedure Code in context of the expression "imprisonment
which may extend to ten years" occurring in Section 386 of the IPC. · F
Appellant was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under
Sections 386, 506 and 120-B of the I.P.C. He was produced before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 31.10.1998 and was released on bail by
order dated 2.1.1999 by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that G
charge-sheet was not submitted within 60 days as provided under Section
167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. That order was challenged before
the Sessions Judge, New Delhi by filing Criminal Revision No.22of1999. By
judgment and order dated 18.8.1999, the Additional Sessions Judge, New
Delhi allowed the said revision application. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge held that for an offence under Section 386 IPC, period of .~entence H
... A could be up to IO years RI. Hence, clause (i) of the proviso (a) to Section 167
(2) would be applicable. He, therefore, set aside the order passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate releasing the accused on bail. That order was
challenged before the High Court by the accused. The High Court referred
to Its earlier decisions and held that expression "an offence punishable with
B imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years" in clause (i) of the proviso
to Section 167 would mean an offence punishable with imprisonment for a
specified period which period would not be less than IO years or in other
words would be at least ten years. The words 'not less than' qualify the
period. These words put emphasis on the period often years and mean period
must be clear ten years. It was further held that on a plain reading of clause
C (i) of proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C., there seemed to
be no doubt that offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of ten years or more would fall under clause (i) and
offences which are punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years
would fall under clause (ii). Hence, the High Court set aside the order passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge. That order is challenged in this appeal.
Section 167 is a provision which authorises the Magistrate permitting
detention of an accused in custody and prescribing the maximum period for
which such detention could be ordered pending investigation. We are
concerned with the interpretation of proviso (a) of Section 167(2) which reads
E thus:-
"167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty
/our hours.- (2) .....
Provided that-
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person
otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period
of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for
doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the
accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total
period exceeding, -
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an qffence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment
for a term of not less than ten years;"
(ii) ......... "
-
RAJEEV CHAUDHARY v. STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI [SHAH, J.] 511
Further, Section 386 of I.P.C. provides as under:
"386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.
Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or
of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." B
(Emphasis added)
From t~e relevant part of the aforesaid sections, it i~ apparent that
pending investigation relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for
a term "not less than 10 years",. the Magistrate is empowered to authorise the
detention of the accused in custody for not more than 90 days. For rest of C
the offences, period prescribed is 60 days. Hence in cases, where offence is
punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, accused could be detained
up to a period of 90 davs. In this context, the expression "not less than"
would mean imprisonment should be 10 years or more and would cover only
those offences for which punishment could be imprisonment for a clear period D
of 10 years or more. Under Section 386 punishment provided is imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also fine.
That means, imprisonment can be for a clear period of 10 years or less. Hence,
it could not be said that minimum sentence would be 10 years or more.
Further, in context also if we consider clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section
167(2), it would be applicable in case where investigation relates to an offence E
punishable (1) with death; (2) imprisonment for life; and (3) imprisonment for
a term of not less than ten years. It would not cover the offence for which
punishment could be imprisonment for less than 10 years. Under Section 386
of the IPC, imprisonment can vary from minimum to maximum of 10 years and
it cannot be said that imprisonment prescribed is not less than 10 years.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
S.VK Appeal dismissed.