B.L.Yadav - (1.) BY this revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) order dated 2-5-1987 passed by Sessions Judge Meerut is sought to be quashed.
(2.) FACTS leading to the present revision are that the applicant was arrested by the police of the Police Station Delhi Gate Meerut in Crime No. 190 of 1987 under Sections 147/148/326/302/307 and 427 IPC and was produced for remand before the Judicial Magistrate Sri N. A. Zaidi, on 29-4-1987 who after perusal of case diary and other papers neither granted remand nor refused the same rather directed the accused to be produced before the appropriate court on 30-4-1987. When the applicant was produced on 30-4-87 before the Magistrate concerned and prayer was made on behalf of the prosecution for remand, by making a reference to the order dated 29-4-87 the applicant was ordered to be released. Thereafter prayer was made by the police that the applicant be kept ' Baparda '. On 2-5-87 the applicant was produced for remand but the same was refused by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that it has already been refused by Judicial Magistrate having similar jurisdiction. Against that order revision was filed which was still pending but as an interim order Sessions Judge Meerut granted remand to the applicant for a fortnight. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. Sri A. B. L. Gour, learned counsel for the applicant strenuously urged that refusal of remand by 3 Magistrates on 29-4-87, 30-4-87 and 2-5-87 was perfectly justified and the order of learned Sessions Judge granting remand for a fortnight was beyond the provisions of Section 167 of the Code. It was next urged that the case diary and papers were not produced and in case they were produced, no case of remand was made out and unless the Magistrate was prima facie satisfied on perusal of case diary and other papers, no remand can be granted. Reliance was placed on Regnikant Mehta v. State of Orissa, 1975 CrLJ 83, In re Burla Jairami Reddi, AIR 1957 AP 561, Beer Bhadra Pratap v. D. M. Azamgarh, AIR 1959 All. 384 and Rajaram Chaudhary v. State, AIR 1951 All. 460. Sri Harihar Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the State on the other hand urged that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly granted remand on the perusal of the case diary and other papers produced before him as similar papers were produced before the Magistrate also but without giving sufficient reasons they refused to grant remand. The impugned order is correct in view of the provisions of Section 167 of the Code, read as a whole.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, there are 2 points for consideration. First is whether under the provisions of Section 167 the order of Magistrate refusing remand were justified particularly when the case diary and other materials were also produced before them. Second point is as to what is ambit of scrutiny by Magistrate under Section 167 for passing an order of remand. These points can be answered on the interpretation of Section 167 of the Code. The relevant statutory provision of Section 167 is 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 : (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII (thirty three) for the purposes of that (Chapter) ; " ;