A Magistrate cannot remand an accused person to custody beyond 15 days under Section 167 CrPC without taking cognizance of the case under Section 344 CrPC.

ORDER : All these applications arise out of orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1966 of the Gudalur police station. The petitioners in all these petitions were arrested, detained and confined in jail custody from 18-2-1965 till today on the ground that they were suspected to have abeted, participated and committed grave offences, such as, noting armed with deadly weapons, attempt to murder, causing hurt to deter public servant from doing his duty and causing the murder of two policemen, in connection with the mass upsurge in Gudalur, a big village in the extreme southwest of Madurai Dt. in South India, on account of Hindi being imposed on the citizens of South India us official language.

2. All the petitioners in the above applications were in a crowd of about 500 at the time of the alleged incident that took place on 12-2-1965. The petitioners, along with other persons, on the date of the incident, proceeded towards the post office, shouting slogans "Down with Hindi, we will sacrifice our life for the sake of Tamil, attack the post office, and down with the police". The crowd was led. according to the evidence of the police, by one Rajangam, member of the Madras Legislative Assembly, the petitioner in Crl. M. P. 1147 of 1965. On the way to the post office, all the petitioners, who are now in custody, along with the crowded fire to the lorries found on the road side, and pelted stones at the police, who were then stationed there to maintain law and order. The police had to open fire. Two persons in the crowd succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently four persons sustained bullet injuries. Immediately the crowd got out of control, rushed towards the police station and began to pelt atones, in spite of the warnings given by the police. Accused 2 to 13 (including some of the petitioners) are alleged to have rushed to the police station at the instigation of Rajangam and killed Ramachandra Singh, a head constable and another constable. A number of persons were arrested by the police for the said offences and they are now in jail custody from 13-2-1965.

3. The definite allegations against the petitioner in Cri. M. P. 1147 of 1965 is that he belongs to D.M.K. party, but he is a Member of the Madras Legislative Assembly and that he led the mob and tried to attack the post office and the subsequent incident followed resulting in the death of the two policemen at the hands of the violent mob. In effect, the gravamen of the charge is that the said petitioner Rajangam, is a man of influence and Importance and, taking advantage of the fact Slat he is a Member of the Madras Legislative Assembly, he led the mob and incited them to attack Government Offices, and subsequently when the police intervened to maintain law and order, he incited the mob to kill the policeman. His name and the names of some of the other petitioners are found in the first information report. They were arrested on 18-2-1965 and till now no charge sheet has been filed against them, and they are being remanded from time to time.

4. The petitioners in all these petitions allege that they are innocent. The petitioner Rajangam denies that he ever led the mob, but contends, on the other hand, that on the date of the incident tie himself went to the police station, interviewed the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, who was then camping at Uthamapalayam in connection with the Anti-Hindi agitation and that while he was in the police station he was arrested, ill-treated and remanded to custody from the date of his arrest, from time to lime, without giving any reasons for his arrest and without acquainting him with the offences he was charged with. He still continues to be in custody.

5. The petitioner in Crl. M. P. 1134 of 1965 alleges that he is an innocent person. He belongs to a respectable family. He is a reputed businessman and till now there has been no allegation against his character or integrity either in his business or pe