Holding

The phrase "not less than ten years" requires a minimum prescribed imprisonment of ten years or more; therefore Section 386 IPC does not fall within proviso (a)(i) of Section 167(2) and the 60‑day limit applies.

Summary

The appellant, Rajeev Chaudhary, was arrested for offences under IPC sections 386, 506 and 120B and was released on bail by a Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the charge‑sheet was not filed within 60 days. The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the bail, holding that Section 386, which provides imprisonment "which may extend to ten years," attracted the 90‑day detention provision of proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2). The Delhi High Court reversed this view, interpreting "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" to mean a minimum sentence of ten years, which Section 386 does not prescribe. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the expression "not less than ten years" requires a minimum imprisonment of ten years or more; since Section 386 only sets a maximum of ten years, it does not fall within the proviso (a)(i) and the 60‑day limit applies. Consequently, the bail order stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the expression "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" in proviso (a) to Section 167(2) CrPC includes offences where the maximum punishment is ten years but the minimum is less than ten years, specifically Section 386 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 167(2) proviso (a)(i)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 386

Subjects

Criminal Procedure CodeSection 167baildetention pending investigationinterpretation of statutory languagenot less than ten yearsIPC Section 386Supreme Courtappeal

Judgment

A RAJEEV CHAUDHARY
v.
STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI ~

MAY 4, 2001

B [M.B. SHAH AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 167(2) Proviso (a)(i)-
Applicability of-Expression "offence punishable wUh. imprisonment for a ~- ~

term of not less than ten years"-Connotation of-.Held, inapplicable to
c S. 386 ofJ.P C. which prescribes punishment which may extend to ten years--
Penal Code, 1860-S. 386.

Words and Phrases

"Offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten
D years"-Meaning of in the context of S. 167(2) Proviso (a)(i) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.

"Imprisonment which may extend to ten years"-Meaning of in the
context of S.386 of the Penal Code, 1860.
~
E Appellant, arrested in connection with an offence punishable under
Sections 386, 506 and 120B of IPC, was released on bail under S.167(2) of
the Criminal Procedure Code by the Magistrate on the ground that
chargesheet was not filed within 60 days. On revision, Additional Sessions
Judge set aside the bail order holding that for an offence under Section 386 '
'
r,...,~

F IPC, period of sentence may extend upto 10 years and hence clause (i) of
proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code providing detention upto a period
of 90 days would be applicable. However, on challenge High Court set aside
the order of Additional Sessions Judge. Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD : 1.1. Under Section 386 IPC, imprisonment can vary from
minimum to a maximum of 10 years and thus, it cannot be said that

---
imprisonment prescribed is not less than 10 years. Thus, the proviso (a)(i)
to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, would not be applicable
to the offences under Section 386 IPC. [511-D-F]
H 508
RAJEEV CHAUDHARY v. STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI [SHAH, J.j 509
,,
1.2. Under S.167(2~ proviso (a,'(i~ pending investigation relating to A
offence punishable with imprisonment for a term "not less than lO years",
the Magistrate is empowered to authorise the detention of the accused in
custody for not more than 90 days. For re~t of the offences, period prescribed
in 60 days. The expression "not less than" would mean imprisonment should
be lO years or more and woold cover only those offences for which punishment
could be imprisonment for a clear period of lO years or more. Under Section B
386 punishment provided is imprisonment of either description for a· term
which may extend to 10 years and also fine. That means, imprisonment r.an
bz for a clear period of .10 yea~s or less. Hence, it could not be Said that
minimum sentence would be io years or more. [509-H; 510-A-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
c
606 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.2000 of the Delhi High Court
in Crl. M. (M) No. 2532 of 1999.

Dr. Krishan Singh Chaudhan (AC.) for the Appellant. D

Kailash Vasdev, K.C. Kaushik for D.S. Mehra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHAH, J. Leave granted. E
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
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.
...
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.
D
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-
F
(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
G 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;"

H (ii) ......... "
RAJEEV CHAUDHARY v. STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI [SHAH, J.] 511

Further, Section 386 of I.P.C. provides as under: A
"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.
F
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

S.VK Appeal dismissed.