JUDGMENT : 1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-original accused calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the 10th Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat in the Criminal Revision Application No.457 of 2017, by which, the Revisional Court rejected the revision application filed by the applicant herein thereby affirming the order passed by the 10th Addl. Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat dated 16.12.2017 rejecting the default bail application filed in connection with the first information report being C.R. No.I-31 of 2017 registered with the Rander Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 413, 465 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears from the materials on record that the first information report being C.R. No.I-31 of 2017 came to be registered on 11.03.2017 with the Rander Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On 26.09.2017, the Investigating Officer filed a report before the learned Magistrate for adding the offences punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 413 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code in the first information report. 4. The applicant herein came to be arrested on 26.09.2017 by way of a transfer warrant from the Lajpor Central Jail. On 27.09.2017, the applicant was produced before the J.M.F.C, who remanded the applicant to the police custody upto 29.09.2017. On completion of the police remand, the applicant was ordered to be remanded to the judicial custody. It appears that the period of 60 days in the judicial custody expired on 25.11.2017. The charge-sheet was not filed by that time. On 14.12.2017, the applicant filed an application under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C and prayed for default bail. The learned Magistrate rejected such application holding that the chargesheet is to be filed within 90 days and not 60 days. Being dissatisfied with such order, rejecting the default bail application, the applicant preferred a criminal revision application before the Sessions Court and the revision application also came to be rejected. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the courts below, the applicant is here before this Court. 5. Being dissatisfied with such order, rejecting the default bail application, the applicant preferred a criminal revision application before the Sessions Court and the revision application also came to be rejected. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the courts below, the applicant is here before this Court. 5. The point for my consideration is that in a case wherein the accused is charged with the offence punishable under section 467 of the IPC, the charge-sheet should be filed within 60 days or 90 days. 6. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that for the offence under section 467 of the IPC, the Court can award sentence for the period less than 10 years. Section 467 IPC does not provide that the minimum sentence would be not less than 10 years. Mr. Shah submitted that under clause (i) of the proviso of section 167(2) of the Code, if the minimum punishment for an offence is not less than 10 years, then only the period of 90 days for filing the charge-sheet would be applicable. If the offence is punishable for any term upto 10 years, then the period of 60 days would be the time limit to submit the charge-sheet. 7. Mr. Shah, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on one decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Som Nath & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, 2011 Cr.L.J. 3097, wherein a learned Single Judge of the High Court observed as under; “9. There is no doubt that if offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, challan is to be submitted by the prosecuting agency within 90 days, however, if offence is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, then challan is to be submitted within 60 days from the date of the custody. 10. Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:- "467. 10. Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:- "467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc - Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine". 11. Undisputedly, under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, Court can award sentence for the period less then ten years. Section 467 IPC does not provide that minimum sentence would be not less than ten years. 12. In the opinion of this Court, under clause (i) of proviso of Section 167(2) of the Code, if minimum punishment for an offence is not less than 10 years then only period of 90 days for filing the challan would be applicable, if offence is punishable for any term upto ten years then period of 60 days would be applicable to submit the challan. I find support from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sohan Lal vs. State reported in 1991, Allahabad Criminal Reports, 383 as well as, judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Parkash Gabbar vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1997(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 193. This Court in the case of Om Parkash Gabbar (Supra) in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 has observed as under:- "4. This provision came up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in Sohan Lal's case (supra). After a discussion of its implications, the learned Judge observed as under:- "Section 167(2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in police custody, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. After a discussion of its implications, the learned Judge observed as under:- "Section 167(2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in police custody, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. But total period of detention shall not exceed ninety days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death/imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. If the investigation relates to any other offence, the total period of detention shall not exceeds sixty days. The words "imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" mean that the maximum punishment shall be ten years. The term `not less than ten years' is not to be confused with the terms `upto ten years'. In a case where the maximum punishment is upto ten years, the period of detention, which is permissible under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is only sixty days." To our mind, the paragraph above wholly sums up the clear intent of the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code. 5. Mr. Randhawa, the learned State counsel has, however, relied upon the decision in Tejinder Singh Desanj's case (supra). It is true that the decision is in favour of the State counsel, but we find that the learned Judge did not delve deep into the matter and after reproducing the words of the Section, straightaway came to his conclusions. We are of the opinion that the two different situations and in the offences wherein the `sentence up to ten years' imprisonment in provided, the challan has to be filed within sixty days and in cases where the sentence provided is not less than ten years (by way of illustration Sections 304, 305, 307, 313 IPC etc.) the challan has to be filed within ninety days. We accordingly answer the reference as under: The words "imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years" occurring in Section 167 (2)(a)(i) of the Code mean that the minimum punishment provided should be ten years. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Tejinder Singh Desanj's case (supra) does not lay down correct law and the same is over ruled. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Tejinder Singh Desanj's case (supra) does not lay down correct law and the same is over ruled. We, accordingly, accept the interpretation given by the Allahabad High Court in Sohan Lal's case (supra)." 8. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Shah prays that the courts below committed an error and should have ordered the release of the applicant on default bail. 9. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by the learned APP appearing for the State. The learned APP submitted that for the purpose of default bail, what is important to be seen is the maximum sentence that can be imposed for the offence charged. It is submitted that section 467 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine. 10. Once the punishment is imprisonment for life, then the period of filing of the charge-sheet would be 90 days and not 60 days. In such circumstances, referred to above, the learned APP prays that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether in a case in which the accused is charged with the offence punishable under section 467 of the IPC, the charge-sheet should be laid within 60 days or 90 days. 12. Section 467 of the IPC reads as under; “467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 13. For the sake of convenience, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 167 of the Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder; "167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours- (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the cases, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that – (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding – (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter; (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him; (c) no Magistrate of the Second Class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. Explanation I.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail. Explanation II.- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention." 14. Explanation II.- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention." 14. As per the provisions quoted above, whenever an accused is arrested and produced before a Judicial Magistrate under Sub-section (1) of Section 167, the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole. However, the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. But no Magistrate shall authorise such detention of the accused person in custody for a total period exceeding ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and no Magistrate shall authorise such detention of the accused person in custody for a total period exceeding sixty days where the investigation relates to any other offence. 15. A bare reading of section 467 of the IPC shows that the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. In other words, the Court may impose sentence upto 10 years, but in a given case, the sentence of imprisonment for life can be awarded. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 Cr.P.C consists of three parts. The first part relates to the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of the accused person. This part consists of two sub-parts. In positive terms it prescribes that no Magistrate shall authorize detention of the (2)(a) for a total period exceeding (i) 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable under death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a terms of not less than 10 years (ii) 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offences. The period of 90 days is applicable to cases where the investigation relates to the three categories of offences which are punishable with (i) death, (ii) imprisonment for life; or (iii) imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. The period of 90 days is applicable to cases where the investigation relates to the three categories of offences which are punishable with (i) death, (ii) imprisonment for life; or (iii) imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. The question is whether section 467 of the IPC is an offence “punishable” with imprisonment for life. 16. What should be the adequate punishment in a given case has to be decided by the Court on the basis of the facts and circumstances involved in the particular case. The stage of imposing a sentence comes only after recording the order of conviction of the accused person. The significant word in the proviso is "punishable". The word "punishable" as used in the statutes which declare that certain offences are punishable in a certain way means liable to be punished in the way designated. It is ordinarily defined as deserving of or capable or liable to punishment, capable of being punished by law or right, may be punished or liable to be punished, and not must be punished. 17. In Bouviers Law Dictionary meaning of the word "punishable", has been given as "liable to punishment". In "Words and Phrases" (Permanent Edition) following meaning is given:- "The word "punishable" in a statute stating that a crime is punishable by a designated penalty or term of years in the State prison limits the penalty or term of years to the amount or term of, years stated in the statute". "Corpus Juris Secundum" gives the meaning as: “Deserving of or liable to, punishment; capable of being punished by law or right; said of persons or offences. The meaning of the term is not "must be punished" but "may be punished" or "liable to be punished.” 18. Where minimum and maximum sentences are prescribed both are imposable depending on the facts of the cases. It is for the Court, after recording conviction, to impose appropriate sentence. It could be argued, at this stage, that as section 467 of the IPC is a Magistrate triable offence, the maximum sentence that the Magistrate can impose, is three years and if the offence is tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, then the maximum sentence which he may impose, would be seven years. It could be argued that, in any case, the sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be imposed. This would hardly make any difference. It could be argued that, in any case, the sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be imposed. This would hardly make any difference. The statute has thought fit to provide for punishment with imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend upto 10 years. 19. In a very recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, AIR 2017 SC 3948 , the law has been very exhaustively explained. The majority view taken in the said matter is that section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code is applicable only in the cases where the accused is charged with (i) offences punishable with death and any lower sentence; (ii) offences punishable with life imprisonment and any lower sentence and (iii) offence punishable with minimum sentence of 10 years. In all cases where the minimum sentence is less than 10 years but the maximum sentence is not death or life imprisonment, then section 167 (2)(a)(ii) will apply and the accused will be entitled to grant of “default bail” after 60 days in case the chargesheet is not filed. 20. The case on hand falls within section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C and the statutory time period for filing the charge-sheet would be 90 days considering that the accused is charged with the offence punishable under section 467 of the IPC. 21. The decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 22. In view of the above, this application fails and is hereby rejected.