CASE NAME | MR. Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State Of Maharashtra |
CITATION | 2001 CriLJ 4563 |
COURT | Bombay High Court |
PETITIONER | UDAY MOHANLAL ACHARYA |
RESPONDENT | STATE OF MAHARASHTRA |
BENCH | G D Patil, R M Lodha |
DATE OF JUDGMENT | 4 September, 2000 |
ISSUE | Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) – Section 167(2); Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (16 of 1999) – Sections 3, 13, 14 |
FACTS
The petitioner in this case is accused in C.R. No. 36 of 1999 for offenses under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3 of the Act of 1999. The petitioner surrendered on 17th June 2000 before the Designated Court constituted under Section 6 of the Act of 1999 and was remanded by the concerned Designated Court on that day.
On 17th August 2000, the petitioner applied for release under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The basis for this application was that the Investigating Officer had not filed the challan (charge-sheet). The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, and the Designated Court, in its order of the same date, rejected the application.
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER
The petitioner challenged the order of the Designated Court on 17th August 2000 in Bail Application No. 2701 of 2000 on 18th August 2000. The learned Single Judge heard the bail application on 22nd August 2000 and kept the matter part-heard on 23rd August 2000. On that date, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench, stating that considering the magnitude of the offense, the question of whether the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to the offense under the Act of 1999 needs to be considered by the Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the matter.
The Chief Justice assigned the bail application to the current Bench for hearing on 25th August 2000.
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT
The Designated Court held that in cases under the Act of 1999, the provision for filing the charge-sheet within the stipulated period under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would give the Investigating Officer an insufficient period. The court further stated that the legislature, in its wisdom, had made the criminal procedure applicable to cases of the Act of 1999 “only so far as may be.” Therefore, the specific provision of the Act of 1999 would prevail over the general provisions under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the Designated Court rejected the application.
JUDGMENT
In this case the accused/petitioner is not entitled to release on bail under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and their custody is now governed by Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused/petitioner can only apply for bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but cannot avail the benefit of compulsory bail. The accused/petitioner is advised to apply for regular bail under Section 437 before the Designated Court, which will consider the application in accordance with the law.
CONCLUSION
The petitioner’s application for release on bail under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the Designated Court. The court held that the Act of 1999 prevails over the general provisions of Section 167, and the petitioner’s right to be released on bail under that provision was forfeited. However, the petitioner can still apply for regular bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Designated Court. The bail application made by the petitioner was dismissed, and the custody of the petitioner is now governed by Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
written by Shipra Vidyarthi intern under legal vidhiya
