Muniswamy Vs. State of Karnataka

Muniswamy vs State of Karnataka

Disposition Petition allowed Court Karnataka Decided Apr 02, 1985

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/383890

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/383890
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Desai, J.
Decided On: Apr 02, 1985
Case Number: Crl. Petition No. 141 of 1985
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (Central Act No. 2 of 1974) - Section 167(2) -- For computation of 90 days, date of arrest inclusive -- Section 10 General Clauses Act not applicable.;Petitioner arrested on 29-10-1984 ; Chargesheet filed on 28-1-1985 on the ground 26-1-1985 and 27-1-1985 were holidays. ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 - Sections 167(2); General Clauses Act - Sections 10

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muniswamy

Advocate C.H. Hanumantharaya, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Advocate B. Basappa, S.P.P.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 - Sections 167(2); General Clauses Act - Sections 10
Reported In: ILR1985KAR3180

Excerpt

.....but not as provided in rule 15(1)(2-c) as notwithstanding anything contained in the rules. the intention of using words notwithstanding anything contained in the rules would only empower both the authorities, viz; lending authority as well as borrowing authority to take a decision in the matter whenever prima facie evidence is available to invoke such power conferred on such authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent and place him under suspension pending such departmental enquiry. when such is the intention of the legislature, the contention of the petitioner that in case of lending a government employee to the borrowing authority, the lending authority has no power and jurisdiction to initiate any disciplinary proceedings and to pass an order of suspension pending departmental enquiry is misconceived. - 5. in the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for rs, 5,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the city sessions judge, bangalore and on his undertaking to abide by the following condition :(i) that he shall not leave bangalore without the express permission of the session judge, bangalore......been filed within 90 days as required by proviso (a) (i) of sub-section (2) of section 167 cr. p.c. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. in support of his contention mr. hanumantharaya relied upon the decision of this court in balappa karnal and others -v.- state of karnataka, : ilr 1985 kar3098 . in the said case mylearned brother venkatesh, j, was pleased to hold that in computing the period of 90 days the date of arrest should be included and that the prosecution cannot take advantage of section 10 of the general clauses act as there was no time limit within which the police had to place their final report. with respect, i agree with the said view. as 90th day expires in this case, from the date of the arrest of the accused on 26-1-1985 the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail by the court below on that day.5. in the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for rs, 5,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the city sessions judge, bangalore and on his undertaking to abide by the following condition :(i) that he shall not leave bangalore without the express permission of the session judge, bangalore.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Dcsai, J.

1. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 198/84 of H.A.L. Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner on 24-10-1984 at about 8.30 p.m. caused the death of the deceased Gullaiah by stabbing him with a knife. His application for bail was rejected by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, V Court, Bangalore. Hence, he has filed this application in this Court under Sections 439 and 167 Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

3. Heard Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The petitioner was arrested on 29-10-1984 at about 10.30 p.m. The police have filed the charge sheet against him in the Court below on 28-1-1985 that is, beyond the period of 90 days from the date of his arrest. According to the prosecution, 26-1-1985 and 27-1-1985 were holidays and there-fore, the charge-sheet must deemed to have been filed within 90 days. According to Mr. Hanumantharaya, the period of 90 days has to be counted from the date of arrest and the prosecution cannot have the benefit of the holidays and as the charge sheet has not been filed within 90 days as required by proviso (a) (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contention Mr. Hanumantharaya relied upon the decision of this Court in Balappa Karnal and Others -v.- State of Karnataka, : ILR 1985 KAR3098 . In the said case myLearned Brother Venkatesh, J, was pleased to hold that in computing the period of 90 days the date of arrest should be included and that the prosecution cannot take advantage of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act as there was no time limit within which the police had to place their final report. With respect, I agree with the said view. As 90th day expires in this case, from the date of the arrest of the accused on 26-1-1985 the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail by the Court below on that day.

5. In the result, the Petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs, 5,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the City Sessions Judge, Bangalore and on his undertaking to abide by the following condition :

(i) That he shall not leave Bangalore without the express permission of the Session Judge, Bangalore.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1985 Same Parties Muniswamy vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Desai, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 - Sections 167(2); Gen...

Criminal General Clauses Act Public prosecutor Police Station The State Abide by H Res