The Executive Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate or Special Executive Magistrate cannot order the remand of an accused person charged under the TADA (P) Act beyond a period of sixty days. If further detention is necessary, the investigating agency must obtain an order from the Designated Court.

Civil Rule No. 2374 of 1993 has been filed by the elder brother of detenu bhri Thikung Mosang, who was taken into custody on 15.3.93 by the Dibrugarh Police where he was going from the State of Arunachal Pradesh, his place of permanent resident, for business purpose. He was arrested in connection with Dibrugarh PS Case No. 229/93 under sections 3/4 TADA (P) Act. Thereafter he was taken to a place called Changlang on 15.4.93 and according to the writ petitioner, the detenu was kept in quarter guard at that place. It has also been stated that he was never produced before any Magistrate. He was shown arrested in GR Case No. 9/93 of Karsang PS Case No. 4993/93 under section 121-Aofthe Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of Deputy Commissioner (J) Chaaglang. Thereafter he was granted bail in that case by this Court on 15.7.93 in Criminal Original Appli­cation No. 443 of 1993. But he was not enlarged on bail as he was shown arrested in another case, namely. Jairampur PS Case No. 12/93 under section 3/4 TADA (P) Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that his brother was never produced before a competent Court and there was no proper remand order. The Civil Rule (HC) No. 81 of 1993 has been filed by Shri Remna Juglie, a permanent resident of Nampang in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. He was arrested by Arunachal Pradesh Police on 3.7.93 and was kept in the police lock up. Thereafter he was transferred to police custody at Jaira­mpur. It has been stated that he was never produced before any Magistrate and subsequently he came to know that he was arrested in connection with ' Jairampur PS Case 12/93 registered under sections 121/121-A/386/34 IPC. He was subsequently shown arrested also in the case registered as Jairampur PS Case 12/93 under section 3/4 TADA (P) Act. Hence the present petition.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Original case diary has also been produced.

3. As the matter involves interpretation of provisions of TADA (P) Act, notices were issued to all the Advocates General of the North-East. We have heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. NM Lahmi, Mr. SN Bhuyan and Mr. AM Majumdar, learned Advocates General of Meghalaya, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh respectively. On behalf of the Union of India, we have also heard Mr. KN Choudhury and on behalf of the State of Tripura Mr. BP Kataky.

4. We may state here that by our recent order dated 30 5.94, we held that accused Thikung Mosang be set at liberty forthwith and we have been informed that it has been done. The main question in these two petitions involves interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. The said provisions are quoted below :

"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 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-

(