- (1.) FOR reasons delineated hereinafter, the primary and indeed the solitary question that now survives for determination in this reference to the Larger Bench may well be formulated in the following terms: Whether a Magistrate exercising the jurisdiction under Section 167 of the Criminal P. C 1973. performs essentially a judicial function or mererly an executive one?
(2.) THE facts relevant to the aforesaid issue may be recounted with relative brevity: Dilbagh Singh petitioner No. 2 is the son of Kashmir Singh petitioner No. 1. One Jaswant Singh was employed as a servant of Kashmir Singh petitioner No. 1 Whilst digging some foundation with two others, he had found a pot full of old silver coins which they divided amongst themselves. About 12 days prior to the registration of the case, Kashmir Singh and Dilbagh Singh petitioners brought Jaswant Singh and Karnail Singh at the scene of the occurrence and allegedly tortured them to produce the aforesaid old silver coins and further threatened to kill them on their failure to do so. Kashmir Singh petitioner is stated to have fired over the heads of Karnail Singh and Jaswant Singh to terrorise them and thereafter brought them back to his house where the mother and sisters of Karnail Singh were also allegedly brought and tortured. Signatures of Karnail Singh and his mother were allegedly taken on blank pronotes and some gold ornaments and valuable articles were further taken away by the petitioners from the house of Karnail Singh and Jaswant Singh.
(3.) PURSUANT to the registration of the case the petitioners were arrested on March 3, 1982 and were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot because the investigation was being carried on by the C. I. A. Staff. Faridkot. on March 4. 1982. when further police remand was sought.;