MALIK SHARIEF-UD-DIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition came up before us on a reference having been made by a learned single Judge on the ground that the petition raises a legal question on which there is a conflict of judicial opinions and requires consideration by a larger bench.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was arrested in case F. 1. R. No. 60 of 1986 under section 17122161185 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 recorded at Police Station Railway New Delhi Station. The arrest was made on 3-2-1986. He was remanded to judicial custody with effect from 4-2-86 and continued in judicial custody. We have, however, passed an order on 30th July, 1986 directing his admission to bail.

( 3 ) BY this petition the petitioner has sought bail under the provisions of section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on the ground that an absolute right for being offered bail had accrued in his favour because of the failure of the Investigating Agency to file the charge-sheet against him within 90 days, as envisaged by proviso to section 167 (2) of the Code.

( 4 ) THE 90th day of his custody had ended on 4-5-1986 and his application for bail came up for consideration before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shri P. L. Singla on 5th May, 1986, who rejected it on 6-5-1986 holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. We may notice here that the charge- sheet against the petitioner was presented before the court on 91st day when the right under section 167 (2) had already accrued in his favour.

( 5 ) THE reasoining advanced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in refusing the bail is two-fold. Firstly, it is stated that the normal rule is to exclude the first day and include the last day and, secondly, the learned Addl. Sessions JUDGE invoked the aid of section 10 of General Clauses Act and stated that since the 90th day was Sunday, there was nothing wrong in producing charge sheet on the 91st day and in this way the learned Addl. Sessions Judge justified that the custody of the petitioner was legal even after the 90th day. In doing so reliance was placed on and also on. We may at once point out that the reliance by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on Harinder Singh case (supra) is misplaced. That was a petition under the Representation of the People Act wherein the period of limitation for presentation of petition is prescribed by the Representation of the People Act itself.

( 6 ) THE short, though important, question that arises for our consideration in this petition is :

WHETHER an accused person against whom no charge sheet has been filed within 90 days or 60 days, as prescribed by Proviso to section 167 (2) Criminal Procedure Code. of his judicial custody is entitled to bail as of right and whether any discretion is left with the court to refuse bail after the period of 90 days or 60 days of his custody and whether section 10 of the General Clauses Act can be brought in aid in cases in which charge-sheet is not filed within 90 days and 60 days as envisaged by section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ?

( 7 ) WE may, therefore, take up the question regarding application of section 10 of the General Clauses Act for consideration first. But before we do so we may notice section 10 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 which reads as under :

"where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencemeat of this Act, any act or proceediag is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open ;

PROVIDED that nothing in this section shall apply to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act 1877 (XV of 1877) applies. "

( 8 ) IN Harinder Singh case (supra) the Supreme Court while interpreting section 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document