The limit of police custody of 15 days prescribed by Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is applicable only to a single case and is not attracted to a series of different cases requiring investigation against the same accused.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Is the limit of police custody, not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, as prescribed by Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, applicable only to a single case or is equally attracted to a series of different cases requiring investigation against the same accused - is the significant question necessitating this reference to the Division Bench. Equally at issue is a veiled doubt raised regarding the correctness of the earlier single Bench view on this point in Crl.Misc.No.5268-M of 1981 (Harminder Singh Sandhu V/s. The State of Punjab), decided on November 30, 1981.

2. Harsimran Singh petitioner was admittedly arrested by the police on January 12, 1982 and was remanded to police custody for the investigation of a case against him by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jullundur. He was duly interrogated by Shri Kehar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, in the said case and it would appear that after the expiry of the period of police remand, he was placed under judicial custody. However, he was later formally re-arrested in another case registered vide First Information Report No.360 of 1982. at police station Kotwali. Amritsar. He was accordingly produced before the judicial magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar for seeking a further Police remand for interrogation and investigation in the second case aforesaid. On behalf of the petitioner, the grant of the police remand was stoutly opposed on the ground that he had already been fully interrogated by Shri Kehar Singh. Deputy Superintendent of Police and had remained in police custody for nearly fifteen days in the whole and therefore, no further police remand was permissible under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code). This plea of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that he had been re-arrested in a second case and was being produced before him for the first time for inter rogation of offences under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and under Sections 124-A and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, he remanded the petitioner to further police custody till February 4, 1982.

3. The present Criminal Revision originally came up before my learned brother Tewatia, J. sitting singly. Before him, the contention was assiduously pressed that the petitioner could not be remanded to police custody for a period longer than fifteen days even though he may be required to be interrogated by the police in a series of cases. Noticing the significance of the question and the relative paucity of precedent on the point, the case has been referred for an authoritative decision by the Division Bench.

4. Since the issue herein inevitably revolves around Section 167 of the Code, it becomes necessary to view it briefly in the context of its legislative history and in particular the changes wrought in the old Code by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is first apt to quote the relevant parts of this somewhat exhaustive Section, for facility of reference :-

"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 c