http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIALINVESTIGATION CELL-I

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ANUPAM J. KULKARNI

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/05/1992

BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1768            1992 SCR  (3) 158  1992 SCC  (3) 141        JT 1992 (3)   366  1992 SCALE  (1)1024

ACT:      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section, 167(1)-Person arrested  and  produced before Magistrate-Remand  to  police custody after initial period of 15 days-Whether legal.

HEADNOTE:      A case relating to abduction of four diamond  merchants and one K was registered at Police Station on 16.9.91.   The investigation was entrusted to C.B.I.  During  investigation it was disclosed that between 14th  and 15th September 1991, the four diamond merchants, K and one driver were  kidnapped from two hotels, and that K was one of the associates of the accused, responsible for the kidnapping.      On  4.10.91 K was arrested and was produced before  the Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  on  5.10.91  and  he   was remanded to judicial custody till 11.10.91.      On  10.10.91 a test identification parade was  arranged but  K refused to cooperate and his refusal was recorded  by the concerned Magistrate.      On   11.10.91  the  investigating  officer   moved   an application, seeking police custody of K, which was allowed.      When  he was being taken on the way K pretended  to  be indisposed and he was taken to a Hospital, where he remained confined on the ground of illness upto 21.10.91 and then  he was  referred  to  Cardiac  Out-patient  Department  of  the Hospital.   K was again remanded to judicial custody by  the Magistrate upto 29.10.91 and thereafter he was sent to Jail.      As  the Police could not take him into  police  custody all  these days the investigating officer again  applied  to the  court  of  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate  for  police custody of K.      The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relying on a judgment in State                                                        159 (Delhi  Admn.) v. Dharam Pal and others, 1982 Crl.  L.J.1103 refused police remand.      A revision was filed before the High Court against  the order of the Magistrate.      The High Court, without deciding the question,  whether or  not after the expiry of the initial period of 15 days  a person  could  still be remanded to police  custody  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

Magistrate before whom he was produced, granted K bail.      In  these appeals, the C.B.I. challenged the  order  of the  High  Court,  contending that  the  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate  erred  in not granting police custody  and  that Dharam  Pal’s case on which he placed reliance  was  wrongly decided;  that  the High Court erred in granting bail  to  K without deciding the question whether he can be remanded  to police  custody; that a combined reading of  Section  167(2) and the proviso therein would make it clear that if for  any reason  the police custody could not be obtained during  the period  of  first fifteen days yet a remand  to  the  police custody even later was not precluded.      The   respondent-accused  submitted  that  the   police custody if at all be granted by the Magistrate u/s. 167  Cr. P.C. should be only during the period of first 15 days  from the date of production of the accused before the  Magistrate and not later and that subsequent custody if any should only be  judicial  custody and the question  of  granting  police custody  after  the expiry of first 15 days remand  did  not arise.      On the question, whether a person arrested and produced before  the  nearest Magistrate as  required  under  Section 167(1) Code of Criminal Procedure could still be remanded to police custody after the expiry of the initial period of  15 days, this Court dismissing the appeals of the C.B.I.,      HELD : 1.01. Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of Cr. P.C. give a mandate that every  person who  is  arrested and detained in police  custody  shall  be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours  of such arrest excluding the time necessary  for  the journey  from  the place of the arrest to the court  of  the magistrate  and  no  such person shall be  detained  in  the custody  beyond the said period without the authority  of  a magistrate.  These two provisions clearly                                                        160 manifest  the  intention  of  the law  in  this  regard  and therefore  it  is  the  magistrate  who  has  to  judicially scrutinise  circumstances  and if satisfied  can  order  the detention of the accused in  police custody.  [175 C]      1.02.  The  detention in police  custody  is  generally disfavoured  by  law.  The provisions of law lay  down  that such detention can be allowed only in special  circumstances and that can be only by a remand granted by a magistrate for reasons judicially scrutinised and for such limited purposes as  the necessities of the case may require. The  scheme  of Section  167  is  obvious and is  intended  to  protect  the accused  from  the  methods which may  be  adopted  by  some overzealous and unscrupulous police officers.                                                     [175 B]      1.03. Whenever any person is arrested under Section  54 Cr.P.C. he should be produced before the nearest  Magistrate within  24 hours as mentioned therein.  Such Magistrate  may or  may not have jurisdiction to try the case.  If  Judicial Magistrate is not available, the police officer may transmit the arrested accused to the nearest Executive Magistrate  on whom the judicial powers have been conferred. [178 D]      1.04. The Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance authorise the detention of the accused in such custody  i.e. either  police or judicial from time to time but  the  total period of detention cannot exceed fifteen days in the whole. Within  this period of fifteen days there can be  more  than one  order changing the nature of such custody  either  from police to judicial or vice-versa. [178 E]      1.05.  If the arrested accused is produced  before  the Executive  Magistrate  he  is  empowered  to  authorise  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

detention in such custody either police or judicial only for a week, in the same manner namely by one or more orders  but after  one  week  he should transmit   him  to  the  nearest Judicial Magistrate along with the records. [178 F]      1.06. When  the arrested accused is so transmitted  the Judicial  Magistrate, for the remaining period, that  is  to say  excluding one week or the number of days  of  detention ordered  by the Executive Magistrate, may authorise  further detention  within that period of first fifteen days to  such custody either police or judicial.  After the expiry of  the first  period of fifteen days the further remand during  the period  of  investigation can only be in  judicial  custody. [178 G]                                                     161      1.07.  There  cannot  be any detention  in  the  police custody  after  the expiry of first fifteen days even  in  a case  where some more offences either serious  or  otherwise committed by him in  the same transaction come to light at a later stage.[178.H]      1.08. But this bar does not apply if the same  arrested accused  is  involved in a different case arising out  of  a different  transaction. Even if he is in judicial custody in connection with the investigation of the earlier case he can formally  be  arrested regarding his  involvement  in  the different  case and associate him with the investigation  of that other case and the Magistrate can act as provided under Section  167(2)   and the proviso    and can remand  him  to such   custody as mentioned therein during the first  period of  fifteen days thereafter in accordance with the  proviso. [179 A] 1.09.If  the  investigation is not  completed  within  the period of ninety days or sixty days then the accused has  to be released on bail as provided under the proviso to Section 167(2).  The period of ninety days or sixty days has to  be computed from the date of detention as per the orders of the Magistrate  and not from the date of arrest by the  police. [179 C]      1.10.  The  first period of fifteen days  mentioned  in Section  167(2)  has to be computed from the  date  of  such detention  and  after  the expiry of  the  period  of  first fifteen days it should be only judicial custody. [179C]      State  (Delhi Admn.) v.  Dharam Pal  and  Others,  1982 Crl. L.J. 103, approved partially.      S.  Harsimran  Singh  v. State  of  Punjab,  1984  Crl. L.J.253, approved.      Gian  Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), 1981  Crl. L.J.    100;   Trilochan   Singh   v.   The   State   (Delhi Adminitration),  1981 Crl. L.J.1773; State  v. Mehar  Chand, 1969  D.L.T. 179; State (Delhi Administration)  v.  Ravinder Kumar  Bhatnagar,  1982 Crl. L.J. 2366; State of  Kerala  v. Sadanadan,  19184  K.L.T.  747; Chaganti  Satyanarayana  and Others  v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1966] 3 S.C.c. 141  and Natabar  Parida and Others v. State of Orissa, [1975] 2  SCC 220, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal  Nos. 310-311 of 1992.      From  the Judgment and Order dated   9.12.1991  of  the Delhi High                                                      162 Court  in Crl.M.(M) no. 2409/91 and Crl. R. no. 201 of 1991.      K.T.S.Tulsi,  Addl. Solicitor General,  Kailash  Vasdev

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

and Ms.  Alpana Kirpal for the Appellant.      Ram  Jethmalani, Dinesh Mathur and Ms. Binu  Tamta  for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was deliverd by      k.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. Leave  granted.      An important question that arises for consideration  is whether  a  person arrested and produced before the  nearest Magistrate as required under Section 167(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can still be remanded to police custody after  the expiry  of  the initial period of 15 days.   We  propose  to consider  the issue elaborately as there is no  judgment  of this  Court  on this point.  The facts giving rise  to  this question  may  briefly  be  stated.   A  case  relating   to abduction  of  four Bombay based diamond merchants  and  one Shri Kulkarni was registered at Police Station Tughlak  Road New Delhi on 16.9.91 and the investigation was entrusted  to C.B.I.  During investigation it was disclosed that not  only the  four diamond merchants but also Shri Kulkarni,  who  is the  respondent  before  us  and  one  driver  Babulal  were kidnapped  between  14th and 15th September, 1991  from  two Hotels  at Delhi.  It emerged during investigation that  the said Shri Kulkarni was one of the associates of the  accused one Shri R.Chaudhary responsible  for the said kidnaping  of the  diamond  merchants.   On the basis  of  some  available material  Shri  Kulkarni  was arrested on  4.10.91  and  was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi  on 5.10.91.   On  the request of the C.B.I. Shri  Kulkarni  was remanded to  judicial custody till 11.10.91. On  10.10.91  a test  identification parade was arranged  but Shri  Kulkarni refused  to  cooperate  and  his  refusal  was  recorded  by concerned Munsif Magistrate.  On 11.10.91 an application was moved by the investigating officer seeking police custody of Shri Kulkarni which was allowed.  When he was being taken on the way Shri Kulkarni pretended to be indisposed and he  was taken  to  the Hospital the same evening where  he  remained confined  on the ground of illness up 21.10.91 and  then  he was  referred to cardic Out-patient Department of G.B.  Pant Hospital.  Upto 29.10.91 Shri Kulkarni was again remanded to judicial  custody by the Magistrate and thereafter was  sent to   Jail.    In   view  of  the  fact   that   the   Police                                                    163 could  not take him into police custody all these  days  the investigating  officer again applied  to the court of  Chief Metropolitan   Magistrate  for   police  custody   of   Shri Kulkarni.   The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relying  on  a judgment  of the Delhi High Court in State (Delhi Admn.)  v. Dharam  Pal and others, 1982 Crl. L.J. 1103  refused  police remand.   Questioning the same a revision was  filed  before the  High Court of Delhi.  The learned Single  Judge in  the first instance considered whether there was material to make out  a case of kidnaping or abduction against Shri  Kulkarni and observed that even the abducted  persons namely the four diamond  merchants do not point an accusing  finger  against Shri  Kulkarni  and  that  at  any      rate  Shri  Kulkarni himself has been interrogated  in jail for almost seven days by  the   C.B.I.  and  nothing has  been  divulged  by  him, therefore it is not desirable to confine him in jail and  in that  view  of  the matter he granted him  bail.   The  High Court,  however, did not decide the question whether or  not after  the expiry of the initial period of 15 days a  person can  still be remanded to police custody by  the  magistrate before  whom he was produced.  The said order is  challenged in these appeals.      The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing  for the  C.B.I. the appellant contended that Chief  Matropolitan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

Magistrate  erred  in not granting police custody  and  that Dharam  Pal’s  case  on which he placed  reliance  has  been wrongly  decided.  The further  contention is that the  High Court  has erred in granting bail to Shri  Kulkarni  without deciding  the question whether he can be remanded to  police custody as prayed for by C.B.I. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned counsel  for the respondent accused submitted that  language of Section  167 Cr.P.C. is clear and that the police custody if  at  all  be granted by the  Magistrate  should  be  only during  the  period  of  first  15 days  from  the  date  of production  of  the accused before the  magistrate  and  not later  and that subsequent custody if any should    only  be judicial   custody  and  the  question  of  granting  police custody  after the expiry of first 15 days remand  does  not arise.      Section 167 Cr. P.C. 11973 after some changes reads  as under:          "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                                                    164          or  information is well founded,  the  officer-in-          charge of the police station or the police  officer          making  the investigation, he if 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 case, 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 office 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 office,          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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

        custody  under this section unless the  accused  is          produced before him;                                                      165          (c)no Magistrate of the second class, not specially          empowered  in this behalf by the High Court,  shall          authorise detention in the custody of police.           Explanation 1- For the avoidance of doubts, it  is          hereby  declared that, notwithstanding the  expiry          of  the   period  specified in  paragrah  (a),  the          accused shall be  so 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.          (2A)  Notwithstanding  anything contained  in  sub-          section  (1)  or sub-section (2),  the  officer-in-          charge of the police station or the police officer          making  the investigation, if he is not  below  the          rank  of  a sub-inspector, may,  where  a  judicial          Magistrate  is  not  available,  transmit  to   the          nearest  Executive Magistrate, on whom the  powers          of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate          have  been  conferred a copy of the  entry  in  the          diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the  case,          and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to          such  Executive  Magistrate,  and  thereupon   such          Executive  Magistrate  may,   for   reason  to   be          recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the          accused person in such custody, as he may think for          a   term   not  exceeding   seven   days   in   the          aggregate,  and,  on the expiry of the   period  of          the  detention  so authorised, the  accused  person          shall be released on bail except where an order for          further  detention of the accused person  has  been          made by a Magistrate competent to make such  order;          and,  where an order for such further detention  is          made,  the period during which the  accused  person          was detained in custody under the orders made by an          Executive Magistrate under this sub-section,  shall          be  taken  into  account in  computing  the  period          specified  in paragrah 2(a) of the proviso to  sub-          section (2);          Provided  that  before the  expiry of  the  period          aforesaid, the  Executive magistrate shall transmit          to the nearest Judicial  Magistrate the records  of          the case together with a copy  of the                                                       166          entries  in the diary  relating to the  case  which          was transmitted to him by the officer-in-charge  of          the  police  station or the police  officer  making          the investigation, as the case may be.          (3)  A Magistrate  authorising  under this  section          detention in the custody of the police shall record          his reasons for so doing.          (4) Any Magistrate  other than the Chief   Judicial          Magistrate  making such order shall forward a  copy          of  his order, with his reasons for making  it,  to          the Chief Judicial Magistrate.          (5)  If  any  case triable by  a  Magistrate  as  a          summons-case,  the investigation is  not  concluded          within  a  period  of six months from the  date  on          which  the  accused was  arrested,  the  Magistrate          shall make an order stopping further  investigation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

        into  the  offence unless the officer   making  the          investigation   satisfies the Magistrate  that  for          special  reasons  and in the interests  of  justice          the  continuation of the investigation  beyond  the          period of six months is necessary.          (6) Where  any order stopping further investigation          into  an  offence has been made  under  sub-section          (5), the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on          an  application  made to him,  or  otherwise,  that          further investigation into the offence ought to  be          made,  vacate the order made under sub-section  (5)          and  direct further investigation to be  made  into          the offence subject to such directions with  regard          to bail and other matters as he may specify."      Before  proceeding  further  it may  be   necessary  to advert to the legislative history of this Section.  The  old Section   167 of 1898 Code provided for the detention of  an accused in custody for a term not exceeding  15 days on  the whole.   It  was  noted that this was honored  more  in  the breach  than  in  the  observance and  that  a  practice  of doubtful legality grew up namely the police  used to file an incomplete charge-sheet and move the court for remand  under Section  344 corresponding to the present Section 309  which was  not meant for during investigation.  Having  regard  to the fact that there may be genuine cases where investigation might  not be completed in 15 days, the Law Commission  made certain recommendations to confer power on the Magistrate to extend the period of 15  days  detention.                                                        167      These  recommendations are noticed in the  objects  and reasons of the Bill thus:          ".........At   present,  Section  167  enables  the          Magistrate  to authorise detention of  an  accused          in custody for a term not exceeding 15 days on  the          whole.  There is a complaint that this provision is          honored  more in the breach than in the  observance          and  that  the  police investigation takes  a  much          longer  period in practice. A practice of  doubtful          legality  has  grown  whereby  the  police  file  a          "preliminary"  or incomplete chargesheet  and  move          the  court for remand under Section 344   which  is          not   intended   to   apply   to   the   stage   of          investigation.   While in some cases the  delay  in          investigation  may  be  due to  the  fault  of  the          police,  it  cannot  be denied that  there  may  be          genuine  cases where it may not  be practicable  to          complete  the  investigation   in  15   days.   The          Commission  recommended that the  period should  be          extended  to 60 days, but if this is done, 60  days          would  become  the rule and there is  no  guarantee          that  the illegal practice referred to above  would          not  continue.   It  is considered  that  the  most          satisfactory  solution of the problem         would          be to confer on the Magistrate the         power to          extend  the  period of extension  beyond  15  days,          whenever  he  is satisfied  that  adequate  grounds          exist for granting such extension......."      The Joint  Committee, however, with a view to have  the desired  effect  made  provision for the  release    of  the accused if investigation is not duly completed in case where accused  has been  in custody for some period.   Sub-section (5) and (6) relating to offences punishable for imprisonment for   two  years  were  inserted  and  the  Magistrate   was authorised  to stop further investigation and discharge  the accused if the investigation could not be completed   within

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

six months.  By the Cr. P.C. Amendment Act 1978 proviso  (a) to  sub-section (2) of Section 167 has been further  amended and  the Magistrate is empowered to authorise the  detention of  accused in custody during investigation for an aggregate period of 90 days in cases relating to major offences and in other cases 60 days.  This provision for custody for 90 days in  intended to remove difficulties which actually arise  in completion  of  the  investigation of  offences  of  serious nature.   A  new  sub-section (2A) also  has  been  inserted empowering the Executive                                                    168 Magistrate  to  make  an order for remand  but  only  for  a period  not  exceeding seven days in the  aggregate  and  in cases  where   Judicial Magistrate is not  available.   This provision   further  lays  down  that  period  of  detention ordered  by such Executive Magistrate should  be taken  into account  in computing the total period specified  in  clause (a)  of sub-section (2) of Section 167.  Now coming  to  the object  and scope of Section 167 it is well-settled that  it is supplementary to Section 57.  It is clear from Section 57 that  the  investigation should be completed  in  the  first instance within 24 hours if not, the arrested person  should be  brought  by the police before a magistrate  as  provided under  Section  167.  The law does not  authorise  a  police officer to detain an arrested person for more than 24  hours exclusive  of  the time necessary for the journey  from  the place of arrest to the magistrate court. Sub-section (1)  of Section  167 covers all this procedure and  also  lays  down that the police  officer while forwarding the accused to the nearest  magistrate  should  also transmit  a  copy  of  the entries  in the diary relating to the case. The  entries  in the  diary   are  meant to afford  to  the   magistrate  the necessary  information upon which he can take  the  decision whether  the  accused  should be  detained  in  the  custody further  or  not.  It may  be noted even at this  stage  the magistrate  can  release him on bail if an   application  is made  and  if he is satisfied that there are no  grounds  to remand him to custody but if he is satisfied   that  further remand  is  necessary then he should act as  provided  under Section  167.   It is at this  stage sub-section  (2)  comes into operation which is very much  relevant for our purpose. It lays down that the magistrate to whom the accused  person is   thus  forwarded  may,  whether  he  has  or   has   not jurisdiction to try the case, from  time to time,  authorise the  detention of the accused in such custody as  he  thinks fit for a term not exceeding  fifteen days in the whole.  If such  magistrate  has no jurisdiction to try  the  case   or commit  it for trial and if he considers  further  detention unnecessary,  he may order the accused to be forwarded to  a magistrate  having  such jurisdiction.  The Section is clear in  its  terms.   The  magistrate  under  this  Section  can authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks  fit  but it should not exceed fifteen  days  in  the whole.  Therefore the custody  initially should  not  exceed fifteen  days  in  the whole.  The  custody  can  be  police custody  or judicial custody as the magistrate  thinks  fit. The  words  "such  custody" and "for a  term  not  exceeding fifteen days in the whole" are very significant.  It is also well-settled  now  that the period of  fifteen  days  starts running as soon as the accused is produced before the Magistrate.                                                   169      Now  comes the proviso inserted by Act No. 45  of  1978 which is of vital importance in deciding the question before us.  This proviso comes into operation where the  magistrate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

thinks  fit  that  further detention beyond  the  period  of fifteen  days  is  necessary  and  it  lays  down  that  the magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person otherwise  than  in  the custody of the  police  beyond  the period   of fifteen days. The words ‘otherwise than  in  the custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days’ are again very significant.      The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the  C.B.I.,  contended that a combined reading  of  Section 167(2)  and the proviso therein would make it clear that  if for any reason the police custody cannot be obtained  during the period of first fifteen days yet a remand to the  police custody  even  later is not precluded and what all  that  is required is that such police custody in the whole should not exceed  fifteen days. According to him there could be  cases where  a  remand to police custody would  become  absolutely necessary  at a later stage even though such an  accused  is under  judicial custody as per the orders of the  magistrate passed  under the proviso. The learned Additional  Solicitor General  gave some instances like holding an  identification parade  or  interrogation on the basis of the  new  material discovered during the investigation. He also submitted  that some  of the judgments of the High Courts particularly  that of   the  Delhi  High  Court  relied  upon  by   the   Chief Metropolitan Magistrate do not lay down the correct position of  law  in  this  regard. In Gian  Singh  v.  State  (Delhi Administaration), 1981 Cr.L.J. 100 a learned Single Judge of the  High  Court held that once the accused is  remanded  to judicial  custody  he cannot be sent back  again  to  police custody  in connection with or in continuation of  the  same investigation  even though the first period of fifteen  days has  not  exhausted. Again the same  learned  Judge  Justice M.L.Jain   in   Trilochan   Singh  v.   The   State   (Delhi Administration), 1981 Crl.L.J. 1773 took the  same view.  In State (Delhi Administration) v. Dharam Pal and others,  1982 Cr.L.J.  1103  a  Division Bench of  the  Delhi  High  Court overruled  the  learned Single Judge’s  case  and  Trilochan Singh’s  case. The Divison Bench held that the  words  ˜from time  to  time" occurring in the Section show  that  several orders  can  be  passed under Section 167(2)  and  that  the nature  of the custody can be altered from judicial  custody to police custody and vice-versa during the first period  of fifteen  days mentioned  in Section 167(2) of the  Code  and that  after fifteen days the accused could only be  kept  in judicial custody or any other custody as ordered by                                                        170 the  magistrate  but not in the custody of  the  police.  In arriving  at  this  conclusion  the  Division  Bench  sought support on an earlier decision in State v. Mehar Chand, 1969 Delhi  Law  Times  179. In that case the  accused  had  been arrested  for an offence of kidnapping and after the  expiry of  the  first  period of fifteen days the  accused  was  in judicial  custody  under Section 344 Cr.P.C.(old  code).  At that stage the police found on investigation that an offence of  murder  also was prima facie made out against  the  said accused.  Then the question arose whether the  said  accused who  was in judicial custody should  be sent to  the  police custody   on  the basis of the discovery that there  was  an aggravated  offence.  The magistrate refused to  permit  the accused to be put in police custody. The same was questioned before the High Court. Hardy, J. held that an accused who is in  magisterial  custody in one case can be  allowed  to  be remanded  to  police custody in other case and on  the  same rule  he can be remanded to police custody at  a  subsequent stage of investigation in the same case when the information

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

discloses  his complicity in more serious offences and  that on  principle,there is no difference at all between the  two types of cases. The learned Judge further stated as under:          "I see no insuperable difficulty in the way of  the          police  arresting the accused for the  second  time          for the offence for which he is now wanted by them.          The  accused being  already in magisterial  custody          it  is  open to the learned magistrate  under  Sec.          167(2) to take the accused out of jail or  judicial          custody  and  hand him over to the police  for  the          maximum period of 15 days provided in that section.          All that he is required to do is to satisfy himself          that  a  good case is made out  for  detaining  the          accused  in  police  custody  in  connection   with          investigation   of  the case. It may  be  that  the          offences for which the accused is now wanted by the          police  relate  to  the same  case  but  these  are          altogether   different  offences  and  in   a   way          therefore it is quite legitimate to say that it  is          a  different case in which the  complicity  of  the          accused has been discovered and police in order  to          complete  their investigation of that case  require          that  the accused should be associated   with  that          investigation in some way."      The  Division Bench  in Dharam Pal’s case referring  to these observations of Hardy, J. observed that "We completely agree with Hardy, J. in                                                        171 coming to the conclusion that the Magistrate has to find out whether there is a good case for grant of police custody." A perusal  of the later part of the judgment in  Dharam  Pal’s case  would show that the Division Bench referred  to  these observations  in support of the view that the nature of  the custody  can  be  altered from judicial  custody  to  police custody  or  vice-versa during the first period  of  fifteen days  mentioned in Section 167(2) of the Code,  but  however firmly  concluded that after fifteen days the accused  could only be in judicial custody or any other custody as  ordered by  the magistrate but not in police custody. Then there  is one  more decision of the Delhi High Court in  State  (Delhi Administration)  v. Ravinder Kumar Bhatnagar, 1982  Crl.L.J. 2366  where a Single Judge after relying on the judgment  of the  Division  Bench  in  Dharam Pal’s case  held  that  the language  of Section 167(2) is plain and that words  "for  a term  not exceeding fifteen days in the whole" would clearly indicate  that those fifteen days begin to  run  immediately after  the  accused  is produced before  the  magistrate  in accordance  with  sub-section  (1) and  the  police  custody cannot  be  granted after the lapse of  the  "first  fifteen days". In State of Kerala v. Sadanadan, (1984) K.L.T.747,  a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court  held that the initial detention  of the accused by the magistrate can be only  for fifteen  days  in  the whole and it  may  be  either  police custody  or  judicial  custody and  during  the  period  the magistrate has jurisdiction to convert judicial custody   to police  custody and vice-versa and the maximum period  under which  the accused can be so detained is only  fifteen  days and that after the expiry of fifteen days the proviso  comes into operation which expressly refers to police custody  and enjoins  that there shall be no police custody and  judicial custody alone is possible when power is exercised  under the proviso.  The learned Single Judge stated that in  the  case before  him the accused has already been in  police  custody for fifteen days and therefore he could  not be remanded  to police  custody  either  under Section 167  or  Section  309

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

Cr.P.C.      The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the  observations made by  Hardy, J. in Mehar  Chand’s  case would  indicate  that during the investigation of  the  same case  in  which the accused is arrested and  is  already  in custody  if more offences committed in the same case come to light  there should be no  bar to turn over the  accused  to police custody even after the first period  of fifteen  days and  during  the  period of ninety days  or  sixty  days  in respect  of  the  investigation of the  cases  mentioned  in provisos  (a)  (i) and (ii) respectively. It  may  be  noted firstly that the Mehar                                                        172 Chand’s case was decided in respect of a case arising  under the  old Code. If we examine the background in enacting  the new  Section 167(2) and the proviso (a) as well  as  Section 309 of the  new Code it becomes clear that the   legislature recognised  that such custody namely police, judicial or any other  custody like detaining the  arrested person  in  Nari Sadans etc. should be in the whole for fifteen days and  the further  custody under the proviso to  Section 167 or  under Section   309   should  only  be   judicial.   In   Chaganti Satyanarayana and others v.State of Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 3 S.C.C.141  this Court examined the scope  of Section  167(2) provisos (a)(i) and (ii) and held that the period of fifteen days,  ninety days or sixty days prescribed therein  are  to be  computed from the date of remand of the accused and  not from the date of his arrest under Section 57 and that remand to  police  custody cannot be beyond the period  of  fifteen days  and  the further remand must be to  judicial  custody. Though the point that precisely arose before this Court  was whether  the period of remand prescribed should be  computed from  the  date of remand or from the date of  arrest  under Section  57,  there are certain observations  throwing  some light on the scope of the nature of custody after the expiry of  the  first remand of fifteen days and when  the  proviso comes into operation. It was observed thus          As  sub-section  (2)  of Section  167  as  well  as          proviso  (1)  of sub -section (2)  of  Section  309          relate  to  the powers of remand of  a  magistrate,          though   under   different  situations,   the   two          provisions  call for a harmonious reading   insofar          as  the periods of remand are concerned. It  would,          therefore,  follow that the words "15 days  in  the          whole "occurring in sub-section (2) of Section  167          would  be tantamount to a period of "15 days  at  a          time"  but  subject to the condition  that  if  the          accused  is  to be remanded to police  custody  the          remand should be for such period as is commensurate          with the requirements of a case with provision  for          further  extensions for restricted periods,if  need          be,  but  in  no case should the  total  period  of          remand to  police custody exceed 15 days. Where  an          accused is placed in police custody for the maximum          period of 15 days allowed underlaw either  pursuant          to  a  single order of remand or to more  than  one          order,  when  the  remand  is  restricted  on  each          occasion  to  a  lesser number of  days  ,  further          detention  of the accused, if warranted, has to  be          necessarily to judicial custody and not  otherwise.          The  legislature  having provided  for  an  accused          being placed under                                                        173          police custody under orders of remand for effective          investigation  of cases has at the same time  taken

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

        care  to see that the interests of the accused  are          not  jeopardised by his being placed  under  police          custody beyond a total period of 15 days, under any          circumstances,  irrespective  of  the  gravity   of          the offence or the serious nature of  the case.      These observations make it clear that if an accused  is detained in police custody, the maximum period during  which he  can be kept in such custody is only fifteen days  either pursuant to a single order or more than one when such orders are for lesser number of days but on the whole such  custody cannot  be  beyond fifteen days and the  further  remand  to facilitate the investigation can only be by detention of the accused in judicial custody.      Having  regard  to the words "in such custody  as  such Magistrate thinks fit a term not exceeding fifteen days   in the  whole" occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 167  now the question is whether it can be construed that the  police custody,  if  any,  should be within this  period  of  first fifteen  days  and not later or alternatively in a  case  if such  remand had not been obtained or the number of days  of police  custody in the first fifteen days are  less  whether the police can ask subsequently for police custody for  full period  of  fifteen  days not availed  earlier  or  for  the remaining days during the rest of the periods of ninety days or  sixty  days  covered by  the  proviso.    The  decisions mentioned  above  do not deal with this  question  precisely except the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dharam  Pal’s case.   Taking   the  plain  language   into   consideration particularly the words "otherwise than in the custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days" in the proviso  it has  to  be held that the custody after the  expiry  of  the first  fifteen days can only be judicial custody during  the rest  of the periods of ninety days or sixty days  and  that police custody if found necessary of fifteen days.  To  this extent  the  view  taken in Dharam  Pal’s  case  is correct.      At  this juncture we want to make another aspect  clear namely the computation of period of remand.  The proviso  to Section  167(2) clearly lays down that the total  period  of detention  should not exceed ninety days in cases where  the investigation  relates to serious offences mentioned therein and  sixty  days  in  other  cases  and  if  by  that   time congnizance is not                                                          174 taken on the expiry of the said periods the accused shall be released   on  bail  as  mentioned  therein.   In   Chaganti Satyanarayan’s  case it was held that "It, therefore, stands to  reason that the total period of 90 days or 60  days  can begin  to run from the date of order or remand."   Therefore the  first period of detention should be computed  from  the date  of order  or remand.  Section 167(2A) which  has  been introduced for  pragmatic reasons states than if an arrested person  is  produced  before and  Executive  Magistrate  for remand  the said Magistrate may authorise the  detention  of the  accused  not  exceeding seven days  in  aggregate.   It further provides that the period of remand by the  Executive Magistrate  should also be taken into account for  computing the  period specified in the proviso i.e. aggregate  periods of   ninety  days  or  sixty  days.   Since  the   Executive Magistrate  is empowered to order detention only  for  seven days  in such custody as he thinks fit, he should  therefore either  release the accused or transmit him to  the  nearest Judicial  Magistrate together with the entries in the  diary before the expiry of seven days.  The Section also lays down that  the  Judicial  Magistrate who  is  competent  to  make further orders of detention, for the purposes of   computing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

the  period of detention has to take into consideration  the period  of  detention ordered by the  Executive  Magistrate. Therefore  on a combined reading of Section 167(2) and  (2A) it  emerges  that  the  Judicial  Magistrate   to  whom  the Executive Magistrate has forwarded the arrested accused  can order   detention in such custody namely police  custody  or judicial  custody under Section 167(2) for the rest  of  the first  fifteen days after deducting the period of  detention ordered   by  the  Executive  Magistrate.    The   detention thereafter  could only be in judicial custody. Likewise  the remand  under Section 309 Cr. P.C. can be only  to  judicial custody interims mentioned therein.  This has been concluded by this Court and the language of the Section also is clear. Section 309 comes into operation after taking cognizance and not during the period of investigation and the remand  under this  provision  can only be to judicial custody  and  there cannot  be  any controversy about the  same.,  vide  Natabar Parida and other v. State of Orissa, [1975] 2 SCC 220.      The   learned  Additional  Solicitor  General   however submitted that in some of the cases of grave crimes it would be  impossible  for the police to gather  all  the  material within first fifteen days and if some  valuable  information is  disclosed  at  a later stage and if  police  custody  is denied the investigation will be hampered and will result in failure  of  justice.   There  may be  some  force  in  this submission but the purpose of police custody                                                          175 and  the approach of the legislature in placing  limitations on this are obvious.  The proviso to Section 167 is explicit on  this aspect.  The detention in police custody  generally disfavoured  by  law.  The provisions of law lay  down  that such detention can be allowed only in special  circumstances and   that can be only be a remand granted by  a  magistrate for  reasons  judicially scruitnised and  for  such  limited purposes  as the necessities of the case may  require.   The scheme of Section 167 is obvious and  is intended to protect the  accused from the methods  which may be adopted by  some overzealous  and  unscrupulous police officers.  Article  22 (2)  of the Constitution of India and Section 57  of  Cr.P.C give  a  mandate  that  every person  who  is  arrested  and detained  in  police custody shall be  produced  before  the nearest  magistrate  within  a period of 24  hours  of  such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place  of the arrest to the court of the magistrate  and  no such person shall be detained in the custody beyond the said period  without  the authority of a magistrate.   These  two provisions clearly manifest the intention of the law in this regard  and   therefore  it is the  magistrate  who  has  to judicially  scrutinise  circumstances and if  satisfied  can order  the  detention  of the  accused  in  police  custody. Section  167(3)  requires that the  magistrate  should  give reasons for authorising the detention in the custody of  the police.   It  can  be  thus  seen  that   the  whole  scheme underlying  the Section is intended  to limit the period  of police   custody.    However,  taking   into   account   the difficulties   which   may  arise  in  completion   of   the investigation  of  cases of serious nature  the  legislature added  the  proviso providing for further detention  of  the accused for a period of ninety days but in clear terms it is mentioned  in the proviso that such detention could only  be in the judicial custody . During this period the police  are expected  to  complete  the investigation  even  in  serious cases.  Likewise within the  period of sixty days they   are expected  to complete the investigation in respect of  other offences.   The  legislature however  disfavoured  even  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

prolonged  judicial custody during investigation.   That  is why the proviso lays down that on the expiry of ninety  days or  sixty days the accused shall  be released on bail if  he is  prepared to and does furnish bail.  If as  contended  by the   learned   Additional   Solicitor  General  a   further interrogation is necessary after the expiry of the period of first  fifteen  days there is no bar for  interrogating  the accused who is in judicial custody during the periods of  90 days  or  60 days.  We are therefore unable to  accept  this contention.      A question may then arise whether a person arrested  in respect of                                                          176 an  offence alleged to have been committed by him during  an occurrence  can  be  detained again  in  police  custody  in respect of another offence committed by him in the same case and which fact comes to light after the expiry of the period of first fifteen days of his arrest.  The learned Additional Solicitor  General  submitted  that  as   a  result  of  the investigation  carried on and the evidence collected by  the police the arrested accused may be found to  be involved  in more  serious  offences  than  the  one  for  which  he  was originally  arrested  and that in such a case there   is  no reason  as to why the accused who is in magisterial  custody should not be turned over to police custody at a  subsequent stage  of investigation when the information  discloses  his complicity  in  more serious offences.  We  are   unable  to agree.  In one occurrence it may so happen that  the accused might  have  committed several offences and the  police  may arrest  him  in connection with one or two offences  on  the basis  of  the  available  information  and   obtain  police custody.  If during the investigation his complicity in more serious  offences  during the same occurrence  is  disclosed that does not authorise the police to ask for police custody for  a further period after the expiry of the first  fifteen days.    If  that  is permitted than the police  can  go  on adding  some  offence or the other of a  serious  nature  at various stages and seek further detention in police  custody repeatedly,  this  would defeat the very  object  underlying Section 167.  However, we must clarify that this  limitation shall   not  apply  to  a  different  occurrence  in   which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed.  That would be  as  different  transaction  and  if  an  accused  is  in judicial custody in connection with one case and  to  enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case they  can  require his detention in police custody  for  the purpose  of  associating him with the investigation  of  the other  case.   In  such a situation  he  must  be   formally arrested  in connection with other case and then obtain  the order  of  the magistrate for detention in  police  custody. The  learned Additional Solicitor General  however  strongly relied  on  some of the observations made by  Hardy,  J.  in Mehar  Chand’s  case  extracted  above  in  support  of  his contention  namely  that  an arrested accused   who   is  in judicial  custody can be turned over to police custody  even after  the  expiry  of first fifteen days  at  a  subsequent stage  of  the  investigation  in  the  same  case  if   the information   discloses  his  complicity  in  more   serious offences.   We are unable to agree that the mere  fact  that some  more  offences alleged to have been committed  by  the arrested accused in the same case are discovered in the same case would by itself render it to be a different case.   All these offences                                                       177 including  the  so-called serious offences discovered  at  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

later stage arise out of the same transaction in  connection with  which the accused was arrested.  Therefore there is  a marked   difference   between  the  two   situations.    The occurrences constituting two different transaction give rise to  two  different  cases and the exercise  of  power  under Section  167(1)  and (2) should be in  consonance  with  the object  underlying the said provision in respect of each  of those  occurrences  which constitute  two  different  cases. Investigation in one specific case cannot be the same as  in the  other.  Arrest and detention in custody in the  context of  Sections  167(1)  and (2) of the Code has  to  be  truly viewed  with  regard to the investigation of  that  specific case  in  which  the  accused person  has  been  taken  into custody.   In  S. Harsimran Singh v. State of  Punjab,  1984 Crl.  L.J.  253 a Division Bench of the Punjab  and  Haryana High  Court  considered the question whether  the  limit  of police  custody  exceeding  fifteen days  as  prescribed  by Section  167(2)  is  applicable only to single  case  or  is attracted   to  a  series  of  different   cases   requiring investigation against the same accused and held thus:          "We  see  no  inflexible bar against  a  person  in          custody   with   regard  to  investigation   of   a          particular offence being either re-arrested for the          purpose  of  the  investigation  of  an  altogether          different offence.  To put it in other words, there          is  no insurmountable hurdle in the  conversion  of          judicial custody into police custody by an order of          the  Magistrate  under  S.167(2) of  the  Code  for          investigation   another  offence.    Therefore,   a          rearrest  or second arrest in a different  case  is          not necessarily beyond the ken of law".      This view of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High  Court appears to be practicable and also  conforms  to Section 167.  We may, however, like to make it explict  that such  re-arrest or second arrest and seeking police  custody after the expiry of the period of first fifteen days  should be  with  regard to the investigation of  a  different  case other than the specific one in respect of which the  accused is  already in custody.  A literal construction  of  Section 167(2) to the effect that a fresh remand for police  custody of a person already in judicial custody during investigation of a specific case cannot under any circumstances be issued, would  seriously hamper the very investigation of the  other case the importance of which needs no special emphasis.  The procedural law is meant to further the  ends of justice  and not to frustrate the same.  It is an accepted rule that an                                                        178 interpretation which furthers the ends of justice should  be preferred.   It is true that the police custody is  not  the be-all and end-all of the whole investigation but yet it  is one   of   its  primary  requisites  particularly   in   the investigation   of   serious  and   henious   crimes.    The legislature  also noticed this and permitted limited  police custody.  The period of first fifteen days  should naturally apply in respect of the investigation of that specific  case for  which the accused is held in custody. But such  custody cannot further held to be a bar for invoking a fresh  remand to  such  custody  like  police custody  in  respect  of  an altogether different case involving the same accused.      As  the  points  considered  above  have  an  important bearing  in discharge of the day-to-day  magisterial  powers contemplated  under Section 167(2), we think it  appropriate to sum up briefly our conclusions as under :      Whenever  any  person  is  arrested  under  Section  57 Cr.P.C. he should be  produced before the nearest Magistrate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

within 24 hours as mentioned therein.  Such Magistrate   may or  may not have jurisdiction to try the case.  If  Judicial Magistrate is not available, the police officer may transmit the arrested accused to the nearest Executive Magistrate  on whom the judicial powers have been conferred.  The  Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance authorise the detention of  the  accused  in  such custody  i.e.  either  police  or judicial from time to time but the total period of detention cannot exceed fifteen day in the whole.  Within this  period of  fifteen days there can be more than one  order  changing the nature of such custody either from police to judicial or vice-versa.  If the arrested accused is produced before  the Executive  Magistrate  he  is  empowered  to  authorise  the detention in such custody either police or judicial only for a week, in the same manner namely by one or more orders  but after  one  week  he  should transmit  him  to  the  nearest Judicial  Magistrate  along   with the  records.   When  the arrested accused is so transmitted the Judicial  Magistrate, for the remaining period, that is to say excluding one  week or the number of days of detention ordered by the  Executive Magistrate,  may  authorise further  detention  within  that period  of first fifteen days to such custody either  police or  judicial.   After  the expiry of  the  first  period  of fifteen  days  the  further remand  during  the  period  o;f investigation can only be in judicial custody.  There cannot be  any detention in the police custody after the expiry  of first  fifteen days even in a case where some more  offences either  serious  or otherwise committed by him in  the  same transaction come to                                                         179 light at a later stage.  But this bar does not apply if  the same  arrested  accused  is involved  in  a  different  case arising  out of a different transaction.  Even  if he is  in judicial custody in connection with the investigation of the earlier  case  he  can formally be  arrested  regarding  his involvement in the different case and associate him with the investigation of that other case and the Magistrate can  act as  provided under Section 167(2) and the  proviso  and  can remand  him to such custody as mentioned therein during  the first  period of fifteen days and thereafter  in  accordance with  the proviso as discussed above.  If the  investigation is  not completed within the period of ninety days or  sixty days then the accused has to be released on bail as provided under  the proviso to Section 167(2).  The period of  ninety days  or  sixty days has to  be computed from  the  date  of detention  as per the orders of the Magistrate and not  from the  date  of arrest by the police. Consequently  the  first period of fifteen days mentioned in Section 167(2) has to be computed  from  the date of such  detention  and  after  the expiry  of  the period  of first fifteen days it  should  be only judicial custody.      We  may, however, in the end clarify that the  position of  law stated above applies to Section 167 as it stands  in the  Code.  If there are any State amendments enlarging  the periods  of detention, different consideration may arise  on the basis of the language employed in those amendments.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed.      V.P.R.                             Appeals dismissed.                                                     180