Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NAZIR AHMED SHEIKH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/1996
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 160 JT 1996 (1) 108
1996 SCALE (1)116
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Though the respondent has been served with notice, he
has not been either appeared in person or through counsel,
we request Shri R.S. Sodhi, the learned counsel to assist
the Court as Amicus Curiae. We express our appreciation for
the valuable assistance rendered by him. The facts fairly
are not in dispute. On October 26, 1990, at about 9.30 a.m.,
Inspector Dharamveer of BSF was kidnapped in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy by some of the accused persons, while he
was travelling in a mini bus from Nishat to Srinagar. The
accused Nazir Ahmed Sheikh Goldenter shot him dead from his
AD-56 rifle in cold blood. As a result of which, Inspector
Dharamvir died instantaneously. During the course of the
investigation, the recoveries were made and a confessional
statement under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, ’the Act’) was
recovered. In addition thereto, the investigation has
collected other evidence. On March 6, 1992, a charge-sheet
was filed along with a material before the Designated Court
explaining the reasons for the delay in filling the charge-
sheet. By order dated December 29, 1992, the Designated
Court has granted bail to the respondent on the ground that
since the occurrence had taken place on October 26, 1990 and
the charge-sheet came to be filed on March 6, 1992 without
even calling of the relevant case diary. Calling that order
in question, the above appeal has been filed.
It is not in dispute from these facts that the arrest
of the respondent came to be made on March 8, 1991 and the
charge-sheet was filed on March 6, 1992. The question is
whether the charge-sheet was filed within the time or
whether the accused is intitled to be enlarged for failure
to file the charge-sheet. Section 20(4) deals with the
modification of the time prescribed under Section 167 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ’the Code’) with
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
regard to the filing of the charge-sheet. In view of the
fact that the charge-sheet contains a charge that the murder
of the officer was committed liable to conviction under
Section 302 IPC. Clause (b) of Section 167 would apply. It
ways that with reference to sub-section (2) of Section 167
for the words 15 days, 90 days and 6 months where-ever
occurs shall be construed with reference to one year and one
year respectively as envisaged under sub-section (4) of
Section 20 of the Act. It is seen that when the accused has
been arrested on March 8, 1991, the Investigating Officer is
enjoined to produce him before the Magistrate having
jurisdiction within 24 hours from the date of the arrest.
Consequently, the limitation of one year would begin to run
and be counted from next date of the arrest, namely, March
9, 1991. Since the charge-sheet has been filed on March 6,
1992, the Designated Court was not justified in holding that
the charge-sheet was not fled within the limitation
prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act,
i.e., one year. The later amendment to the Act seeking
permission of the Court for extension of the time or filing
the necessary material to show the grounds on which the
investigation could not be completed within the period has
no application since the arrest was made prior to the
amendment of the Act.
Under these circumstances, the Designated Court was
clearly in error in enlarging the accused. The order is
accordingly set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. We
are informed that the respondent has already been in
detention in connection with other cases.