( 1 ) MR. Harshad S. Mehta a broker of Bombay Stock Exchange was lodged in Byculla jail Bombay in August, 1992. C. B. I, at Delhi registered a case vide F. I. R. No. RC2 (A)/92-ACU (V) dated 25th July, 1992, against him along with Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, M/s, KJ. Investments Private Ltd. and other unknown under Sections 11,12,13 (2) and 13 (l) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as p. C. Act ) read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THAT since the petitioner during the relevant time was in Byculla jail Bombay, therefore, C. B. I, moved an application before Special Judge Delhi on 12th August, 1992 under Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code. for the production of the petitioner. The Special Judge, Delhi vide his order dated 12th August, 1992 directed the Supdt. Jail, Byculla Bombay to produce Mr. Harshad S. Mehta in the Court as his presence was required for interrogation in connection with the investigation of this case.

( 3 ) THAT the petitiner, in pursuanace to the said order was produced before the Special Judge, Delhi on 17th August, 1992. On being produced, petitioner was formally arrested in this case on 17th August, 1992 itself. Police remand was sought which was given till 20th August, 1992. Thereafter police remand was extended till 22nd August, 1992. However, vide order dated 22nd August, 1992, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Special Judge, Delhi did not grant police remand but remanded the petitioner to judicial custody till 25th August, 1992 at Central Jail, Tihar.

( 4 ) THAT the petitioner was taken to Bombay on 24th August, 1992 and thereafter never produced before the Special Judge, Delhi. The remand after 25th August, 1992 was neither sought nor given to the petitioner.

( 5 ) IT is in this background Mr. Dinesh C. "mathur, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner has raised very important questions of law. So far there is no decision of any High Court or of the Apex Court on these points. These are:

I) Whether for the sake of interrogation in connection with the investigation, the prosecuting agency can invoke the provisions of Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code. ?

II) Whether remand under Section 167 (2) Criminal Procedure Code. has to be taken after every 15 days or not and whether after the initial remand of 15 days, the accused can be remanded in perpetuity subject of course to the outer limit of 60/190 days?

( 6 ) ON question No. 1, the rival contention of the counsel for the parties can be sumed up thus, that the production of the petitioner from Byculla Jail in order to answer the charge in investigation is contrary to law. The provisions of Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code. can only be invoked in case proceedings are pending in Court pertaining to Inquiry or trial. Investigation is neither Inquiry nor trial. Further this provision is a help in aid to the Criminal Court for summoning the accused from another jail for the purpose of answering a charge in Inquiry or trial; and to appear as witness or for giving evidence. The intention of the legislature was not to allow investigating agency to use this provision for the purpose of summoning the accused from another jail in order to answer a charge in investigation. That is why the word investigation has been omitted in this Section. The provision of Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code. can not be invoked in order to facilitate the investigating agency to make formal arrest. On the other hand, C. B. I s contention is that the word other proceeding appearing under Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code. would include investigation. Interpretation of the statute should be liberal and harmonious. It should not be construed in such a way that it should whittle down the powers of the Court.

( 7 ) THAT, while interpreting the statute, ascertainment of the legislature s, intention is a must. Legislature speaks its mind by use of correct expression and unless there is an ambiguity in the language of the provision the Court should adopt lite