Criminal Misc. No.M-24607 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-24607 of 2008 Date of decision : 22.12.2008 Otokhine David Oseghale ....Petitioner Versus U.T.State, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.S.Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 S. D. ANAND, J. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. He has a grievance that the release on bail of the petitioner on merits had been unjustly declined. The other grievance is that the learned Trial Magistrate and the learned Revisional Court (Addl.Sessions Judge, Chandigarh) went wrong in law in holding that the filing of incomplete challan disabled the petitioner from raising a claim for release for want of compliance with the provisions of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. In that very context, the averment made is that the challan in the context of an offence under Section 467 IPC had to be filed within 60 days of the arrest in view of the fact that it was a case triable by a Magistrate. Learned State counsel resists the plea on both facets by arguing that the petitioner having been found to have forged the relevant certification of the Foreign Registration Authority is not entitled to grant of bail. Qua the other facet, the plea argued is that even though the offence under Section 467 IPC is triable by a Magistrate, it cannot be ignored that it Criminal Misc. No.M-24607 of 2008 -2- **** is punishable with imprisonment of life which would, in terms of clause (i) of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C., allow the Investigating Agency to file the challan within 90 days. The filing of an incomplete challan was also averred to be in order. In that resistance, learned State Counsel adopts the entire line of reasoning adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the context. The petitioner is a Nigerian. As per the relevant provisions of law, a foreign national has to obtain extension from the Foreign Registration Authority for continued stay in India. The Investigating Agency found that Visa endorsement beyond 28.6.2008 was forged. It is neither here nor there for the petitioner to aver that he handed over the document to an official in the office of S.S.P. -cum-Foreign Registration Officer, Patiala who only returned the document alongwith extension endorsement. It may be noticed that the petitioner had not notified his residence at Manimajra to the local SHO. He was required to do so under the instructions in the context. Besides it, he was found absent from his intended address at Patiala.It cannot, thus, be said that there is any case on merits in favour of the petitioner for his release on bail. Insofar as the other part of the argument is concerned, there also the petitioner is not on a firmer footing. The provisions of Section (ii) of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. provide that the prosecution has to file the challan within 90 days. The fact that the offence under reference is triable by a Magistrate Ist Class has no bearing on the controversy. Apart therefrom, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh appropriately relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Dinesh Dalmia Vs. CBI 2007 (3) Apex Court Judgements 413. In para 18 thereof, the following observations made by the Court:- Criminal Misc. No.M-24607 of 2008 -3- **** “It is true that ordinarily all documents accompany the charge sheet. But, in this case, some documents could not be filed which were not in the possession of the CBI and the same were with the GEQD. As indicated herein before, the said documents are said to have been; filed on 20.1.2006 whereas the appellant was arrested on 12.2.2006. Appellant does not contend that he has been prejudiced by not filing of such documents with the charge sheet. No such plea in fact had been taken. Even if all the documents had not been filed, by reason thereof submission of charge sheet itself does not become vitiated in law. The charge sheet has been acted upon as an order of cognizance had been passed on the basis thereof. Validity of the said charge sheet is also not in question. Application of Sub Section (2) of Section 173 of the Code vis- a-vis Sub Section (2) of Section 309 must be considered having regard to he aforementioned factual and legal backdrop in mind.” In the light thereof, it is apparent that petitioner cannot succeed even on the other facet. Dismissed. December 22, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE