The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate must exercise independent judicial discretion based on the complete case diary and police papers alone when granting remand, in accordance with the provisions of Section 167 of the Cr. P. C.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri G. S. Hazela Advocate, counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. on behalf of respondent State. As the facts are not disputed and the argument of the counsel for the applicant is confined only on the impugned order dated 6. 3. 06, passed by I/c ACJM (Railways), farrukhabad, in case No. 378a of 05 State v. Masrruddin, therefore this stage itself as has been agreed between both the parties.

( 2 ) THE facts stated lies in a narrow compass. A, NCR No. 60 of 05 was registered at the instance of one Mohd. Hanif at the police station Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad on 17. 8. 05 at 2. 30 PM under Sections 323/504/506 IPC against four persons as malefactors namely Mazruddin, bashruddin, Muzzavil, and Wasin in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 17. 8. 2005 at 1. 15 PM. The incident was regarding abusing filthy and beating by lathis and dandas by the accused to the brother of the informant namely Noor Mohd. On 1. 9. 05 an application was filed by the informant to convert the said NCR into offence under Sections 323/504/506/308 IPC before Superintendent of Police Fatehgarh. This application was accompanied by medical report dated 17. 8. 05, x-ray report dated 18. 8. 05 and supplementary report dated 4. 8. 2005 of the injured Noor Mohd. which indicated that the injured had received two injuries - one on the root of the nose and other on arm. The injury at the root of the nose was found to be grievous in nature as the nasal bone was found fractured. Additional SP, on that application ordered for converting the case in accordance with injury report and act accordingly. The NCR was converted into a cognizable offence vide crime number 378a of 05 under Sections 147/323/324/504/506/338 IPC. Three of the accused Masrruddin, Shamim and Phaiku were arrested on 6. 3. 05 by the police who sought their remand for fourteen days from 6. 4. 05 upto 19. 3. 05 from the Court of ACJM (R) in the case State v. Masrruddin. However the Magistrate acjm (R) vide his impugned order allowed remand only for two days from 6. 3. 05 to 8. 3. 05. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order this application has been filed by the applicants, who are thirteen in number, invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the prayer that the remand under Section 308 IPC is bad in law and the same has been passed by the magistrate mechanically, without any basis and without any application of mind and is a cyclostyled order on a printed form and the Magistrate has just put his signature on it. He further contended that the impugned order is not in accordance with Section 167 Cr. P. C. nor it is in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution of India and hence deserves to be set aside. The learned AGA contrarily, submitted that since there was fracture of nasal bone the remand was rightly granted and this application being merit less deserves to be dismissed. To adjudicate the correctness of the rival submissions a glimpse of Section 167 Cr. P. C. here in after referred to as the code is desirable as it is related with the controversy involved directly. Section 167 of the code reads thus:

167. Procedure when investigation can not be completed in twenty four hours- (1) when any person is arrested and detained in custory, and it appears that the investigation can not 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 herein after prescribed relating to case, and shall at the same time forward the accused such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom the accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not the jurisdiction to try the case, from