TIOL-DDT 297 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<strong><font color="#996699" size="3">TIOL-DDT 297</font><br>
06 02 2006<br>
Monday </strong></font> </div>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>What
happens after the arrest? Bail??</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT</strong>
had asked two questions on Thursday:</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.
What is a non-bailable offence? And is an offence under Customs/excise non-bailable?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Who
can grant bail for an offence under these statutes?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT</strong>
is overwhelmed with the enormous response from the highly enlightened clan of
TIOL netizens. Some answered the questions and some asked a few more questions,
many referred to several judgements. But nobody had a clear sure answer, because
there really is none. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To
start with, a general understanding:- there is nothing like a non-bailable offence
that is an offence for which a bail cannot be given. High Courts and Sessions
Courts have rather unfettered power to grant bail. So non-bailable would mean
an offence for which the arresting officer cannot give bail. Then who should
grant bail? Obviously a court. Then can every court grant bail? Not exactly,
it is only the court which is competent to try the case that is competent to
give bail too. More of it a little later.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT</strong>
would like to give here the answers sent in by an enlightened lawyer, Padmini
Sundaram from Bangalore. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<strong>1. What is a non bailable offence? And, is an offence under Customs/excise
non bailable?</strong> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section
2(a) of the Cr PC defines both bailable and non-bailable offence which reads
as under;</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“
Bailable offence” means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First
Schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force;
and “non-bailable offence “ means any other offence” </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Table
II of the First schedule to the code of Criminal procedures 1973 is shown below
for ready reference. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">II-
Classification of Offences Against Other laws</font></p>
<table width=450 border=1 align="center" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 id=table1>
<tr>
<td width=265 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">offence</font></p></td>
<td width=144 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cognizable
or non-cognizable</font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bailable
or non-Bailable </font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By
what Court triable </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=265 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1</font></p></td>
<td width=144 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2</font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4</font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4</font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=265 valign=top > <p class=MsoBodyText style='text-align:justify'><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If
punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more
than 7 years.</font></p></td>
<td width=144 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cognizable
</font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non-bailable
</font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Court
of Session </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=265 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If
punishable with imprisonment for 3 years, and upwards but not more than
7 years.</font></p></td>
<td width=144 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ditto
</font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ditto
</font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Magistrate
of the first class.</font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=265 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If
punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only.</font></p></td>
<td width=144 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non-cognizable
</font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Bailable
</font></p></td>
<td width=175 valign=top > <p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Any
Magistrate </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Looking
at the above definition and table II of the First schedule the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 we are able to differentiate between cognizable offence
which is non-bailable and non-cognizable offence which is bailable. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1)
The offence under Section 9(1)(i) of Central Excise and section 135(1)(i)
of Customs Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years and with fine and would fall under Entry 1 and Entry 2 of Table
II of First Schedule above and once it falls in any one of these entries,
it becomes cognizable and non-bailable.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2)
The Offence under Section 9(1)(ii) of Central Excise and section 135 (1)(ii)
is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may <strong>extend to three
years</strong> or with fine or with both. Now here, it should normally fall
under Entry 3 of Table II of First Schedule above which is a non-cognizable
offence and bailable.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But
in a recently reported case law in </font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=27&filename=legal/hc/2005/2005-TIOL-207-HC-DEL-CUS.htm"><b>2005-TIOL-207-HC-DEL-CUS</b></a></font><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
in the matter of Inderjeet Nagpal vs. DRI, the Delhi High Court declined the
prayer for anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition. In Para 11 of the order,
the Delhi HC has interpreted that “the offence punishable under Section
135 (1)(ii) providing for punishment extending to three years clearly indicates
that the same is punishable with imprisonment for a period upto 3 years and cannot
fall under third entry of Table II </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now
the BIG QUESTION is whether the term “extend to three years” can
in any way mean “upto 3 years”. In fact Entry 2 of Table II
above says “If punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and upwards but
not more than 7 years” where 3 years is very clear but whereas <strong>“extend
to 3 years and “upto 3 years” can mean less than 3 years also</strong>
as in Entry 3 of Table II and in that case it can be non-cognizable and bailable
offence. The HC Judgement seems to be quite harsh in as much as Section 135(1)(i)
of Customs Act is punishable with imprisonment extending to 3 years or with
fine or with both and which definitely does not mean 3 years and upwards
i.e Entry 2 of Table II and make it a cognizable and non- bailable offence.
</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
answer to your question no.2 in table II of the First Schedule to the Cr.PC,
1973 –classification of offences against other laws in column 4..</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Another
friend wrote in,</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
In non-bailable offences, the accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of
right..In a non-bailable offence, normally it is only the court which is empowered
to grant bail to the accused. Any arrested person shall be produced before the
nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I
think that offences punishable under section 135 is non bailable. Magistrate
of the first class can grant bail. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Brings
us to the question as to whether offences punishable with imprisonment for a
period less than 3 years or only fine will come under the category of non
bailable ? Cases such as refusing to allow X-ray; obstruction an officer on
duty etc will come under the said category – Such cases, I presume will
be bailable offences – Then does any Magistrate has the right to grant
bail ? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry
for asking questions but it is better to set right my basics and what better
opportunity to get away with it than this one. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well
that explains it. In plain terms, most of the offences under Customs and excise
are non bailable and some of the minor offences are bailable. As per judicial
decisions even offences for which the punishment may extend up to three years
are non bailable.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Now
who can grant the bail?</strong> Bail can be granted only by a court competent
to try the offence. So even though an arrested person is produced before a magistrate,
the magistrate cannot really grant bail as in many states there are "Special
Courts for Economic Offences" and these courts have exclusive jurisdiction
to try cases under Customs and Central Excise. So in these cases even the Sessions
Court cannot grant bail. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In
<em>Superintendent of Central excise v ELUKALA KRISHNAMACHARI AND OTHERS - 1987
(32) E.L.T. 324 (A.P.),</em> the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the bail
granted by the sessions Judge. The interesting details of the case are like
this:-</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Krishnamachary
was arrested on 6-12-1985 and produced before the and Addl. Judge, Ist Class
Magistrate, Nellore on 7-12-1985, with a remand report that he is guilty of
offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act and was liable to be punished for
the offence. The Addl. Judge, 1st Class Magistrate, Nellore, remanded Krishnamachary
to judicial custody on 7-12-1985. Krishnamachary filed a bail application before
the Magistrate on 9-12-1985. <strong>That petition was dismissed on the ground
that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail</strong>, while holding
that the Special Judge dealing with Economic Offences Cases, Hyderabad, alone
has jurisdiction to entertain the application. On 11-12-1985, the Magistrate
passed the orders, directing the transfer of the .case to the court of the Special
Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad as he has exclusive jurisdiction to
try the offence and directed the Jail Superintendent to cause the production
of the accused on 23-12-1985 before the Special Judge for Economic Offences
at Hyderabad. The records were received by the Special Judge for Economic Offences
on 16-12-1985. Meanwhile, Krishnamachary filed Crl. M.P. No. 670/85 before the
Sessions Judge, Nellore, for grant of bail. In spite of the objection raised
by the Public Prosecutor about the jurisdiction of the court to grant bail,
the Sessions Judge granted the bail. Against this bail, the Superintendent moved
the High Court.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And
the High Court emphatically held, "The District and Sessions Judge, Nellore,
should not have entertained the application for bail, when it was brought to
his notice that the Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Nellore dismissed the
applications with an observation that the Special Judge for Economic Offences
alone has got jurisdiction to the cases. It is clear that the jurisdiction of
the Sessions Divisions in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been excluded and
that the <strong>Special Judge for Economic Offences alone is competent to consider
the application for grant of bail."</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>To
conclude, most of the offences under Customs and Central Excise are non bailable
and only a competent court, namely the special court in many states can grant
bail.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now
DDT's question for the day</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">.
Who can arrest for an offence under Service Tax and who can grant bail? Please
send in your answers. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT</strong>
is grateful to the netizens for the prompt and high quality answers. Kindly
excuse us for not being able to individually thank all the netizens. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<strong>Greek and Latin - DDT's new feature.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Prima
facie</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
- (PRY-mah-FAY-shee) - "at first sight," - evidence that is sufficient,
if not rebutted, to prove a particular fact. In a criminal prosecution, the
State has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the
crime charged. In a murder case, this would mean evidence that the defendant's
act caused the victim's death, and evidence that the defendant acted with malice.
If the prosecution fails to introduce such evidence, then its case would fail
on grounds of "failure to make out a prima facie case,". The
Tribunals grant stay if prima facie, the appellant has a strong case.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#996699" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>"For
the skeptic there remains only one consolation: if there should be such a thing
as superhuman law it is administered with subhuman inefficiency."</strong> </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">-- Eric
Ambler</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Until
Tomorrow with more DDT</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have
a nice day. </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail
your comments to</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></font></p>
</body>
</html>