Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to Section 167(2) proviso (a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, the filing of the charge-sheet on the 91st day, due to a holiday on the 90th day, did not infringe Section 167(2) proviso (a)(i).

D. P. MOHAPATRA,J.

( 1 ) THOUGH the application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by N. Sureya Reddy and N. Pandeyaa alias Pandeyya Reddy for being enlarged on bail, at the time of argument the learned counsel pressed the application for petitioner No. 1, N. Sureya Reddy alone. The sole ground on which the application is filed is that the investigating agency having failed to file the charge-sheet within a period of 90 days from the date of arrest of the petitioners, they are entitled to be released on bail as provided under Section 167 (2) proviso (a) (i), Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) THE admitted factual position is that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 8-5-1984 in connection with Chatrapur P. S. Case No. 99 of 1984 which is now pending before the Court of Session, Berhampur, in S. C. No. 155 of 1984. The charge-sheet was submitted on 6-8-1984, i. e. on the 91st day of arrest. The 90th day from the date of arrest fell on 5-8-1984, a sunday. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions u/s. 167 (2) proviso (a) (i) have been infringed in the case, the learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the said provisions have been duly complied with. He places reliance on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act (X of 1897), which reads as follows:-"where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding 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. 2) This section applies also to all Central Acts and Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887. "even if the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act do not in terms apply to the case, consideration of justice and expediency would require that the accepted principle which underlies Section 10 of the general Clauses Act, should be applied in a case where it does not otherwise in terms, apply.

( 3 ) THE short question that arises for consideration is, whether Section 10, General Clauses Act or the principles underlying the provisions apply to be present case. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the provision of section 167 (2) proviso Cr. P. C. cannot be said to have been infringed, due to filing of the charge-sheet on the 91st day, the 90th day having fallen on a holiday (Sunday ). The Supreme Court in the case of Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh, AIR 1957 SC 271, has observed (Para 5) :"broadly stated, the object of Section 10 is to enable a person to do what he could have done on a holiday, on the next working day, where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then according to Section, the Act should be considered to have been done within that period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is open. For that Section to apply, therefore, all that is requisite is that there should be a period prescribed and that period should expire on a holiday. "now it is to be seen whether under the Proviso to Section 167 (2) a period can be said to have been prescribed for submission of the charge-sheet by the Investigation Agency, no doubt, the Section makes no such provision in express terms, but by necessary implication what the Section provides is that if the Investigating Agency fails to submit charge-sheet within 90 days, then they are not entitled to approach a Magistrate to authorise detention of the accused person, who is in custody. Further, it is an accepted position t