Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Tapan Sen and Indrajit Chatterjee, JJ.
Rajendra Kumar Kandoi alias Rajendra Kandoi - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.M. 14878 of 2014
Decided On : 04-12-2014
For the Petitioners:T.N. Roy Choudhury and Debojyoti Deb, Advocates.
For the State :Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg, Advocate.
The interpretation of the schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure influenced the court's decision on the maintainability of the application under Section 438.
Headnote:
Section 438 - Bailable Offences - The court found that although Section 324 is a non-bailable offence, the schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the word 'non-bailable' was substituted with the remarks 'with effect from a date yet to be notified', meaning the date for making the said Section 324 non-bailable has not yet been notified. Therefore, all the sections being bailable, the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was found not maintainable by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The court noted that all the sections made applicable in the case were bailable, and the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was found not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not maintainable due to all the sections being bailable.
Issues: Applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which indicated that the date for making Section 324 non-bailable had not yet been notified.
Final Decision: The application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected as not maintainable.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Counsel for the State and perused the Case Diary.
2. We find from the cause title itself that all the sections that have been made applicable are bailable sections. However, when the learned Counsel for the Petitioners points out that Section 324 is a non-bailable offence, we looked into the schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure and from the same we find that the word non bailable was substituted by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2005 with the remarks "with effect from a date yet to be notified". In other words, the date for making the said Section 324 non bailable has not yet been notified.
3. Under the circumstances, all the sections being bailable, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself is not maintainable before us.
4. It is, accordingly, rejected being not maintainable.
