SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Kundan Singh, J.
Amar Pal & Ors.- Applicants
versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No, 248 of 1994
Decided on 24.2.1994
Counsel for the parties:
For the Applicants - T. S. Dabbas For the Respondent - A.G.A.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is legislative mandate that in no way the detention of accused in police custody can be authorized for any time after expiry of period of first fifteen days remand.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167 (2) - Police custody remand - After expiry of first fifteen days detention of accused in police custody can not be authorized on any ground - Applicants surrendered in the court on 4.1.1994 in a case u/s 148, 149, 302 & 201 I.P.C. - Application of I.O. dates 8.1.1994 for police remand turned down on 13.1.1994 Criminal revision filed - Sessions Judge allowed police custody for one day vide order dated 21.1.1994 - Impugned order is liable to be set aside. (Paras 7 & 8)

       (ii) Police Custody Remand - Discretion of Magistrate within first fifteen days - Bilateral proceedings between the prosecution and court and accused does not come in picture at all Even accused is not required to have notice of proceedings by any rule of law. (Paras 7 & 8)

       Result: Revision allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Kundan Singh, J - This revision is directed against the order dated 21.1.1994 passed by the Recharge Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in criminal revision No. 47 of 1994 allowing the application of the Investigating Officer for giving the applicants in police custody for one day and setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, dated 13.1.1994 where by he had refused to grant police remand.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants filed an affidavit in support of this revision staying therein that the applicants surrendered in court on 4.1.1994 and they were end to custody in connection with case crimes no. 174 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 I.P.C. relating to police station Narsena, district Bulandshahr. The investigating officer moved an application before the Magistrate on 8.1.1994 praying that the applicants may be given in police custody for getting recovery of certain articles made at their pointing out. That prayer of the Investigating Officer was turned down by the Magistrate on 13.1.1994 against that order the State filed criminal revision no. 47 of 1994 before the Sessions Judge, who after examining the material on record allowed the revision and directed the applicants to be given in police custody for one day by means of the order dated 21.1.1994.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the provisions of Sec. 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplate that the Magistrate on being satisfied on adequate grounds for a period not exceeding fifteen days can grant the police custody of an accused. After fifteen days of remand the accused person can only be detained in judicial custody and he cannot be given in the police custody after first fifteen days remand. The learned Session Judge has granted 20 days time on 21.1.1994 for filing revision before the High Court and obtain stay on 9.2.1994, the date of presentation of this revision, the period of first 15 days detention had already expired in continuation of which the applicants have been directed to be given in police custody whereas no court has jurisdiction to authorize police custody of an accused after first 15 days remand and in support of this contention be relied upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Central Bureau of Special Investigation Cell v. Anupam K. Kulkarni1

4. Heard Sri T.S. Dabbas, learned counsel for the complainant, and learned Assistant Government Advocate also and perused the relevant papers on record in this connection I also examined the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (here-in-after referred to as the 'Code' - thoroughly. Sections 157, 209 and 309 of the Code deal with the remand of an accused. The relevant clauses contained in the section quoted below

Sec. 167.

"(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 authorize 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 authorize the detention of 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 authorize 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 of once punishable with death, imprisonment for life or Imprisonment for a term of not less than ten days.

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence.

Sec. 209

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during and until the conclu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top