Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

II)Whether remand under Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code . has to be taken after every 15 days or not and whether after the initial remand of 15 days, the accused can be remanded in perpetuity subject of course to the outer limit of 60/190 days?

(6) On question No.1, the rival contention of the counsel for the parties can be sumed up thus, that the production of the petitioner from Byculla Jail in order to answer the charge in investigation is contrary to law. The provisions of Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . can only be invoked in case proceedings are pending in Court pertaining to Inquiry or trial. Investigation is neither Inquiry nor trial. Further this provision is a help in aid to the Criminal Court for summoning the accused from another jail for the purpose of answering a charge in Inquiry or trial; and to appear as witness or for giving evidence. The intention of the legislature was not to allow investigating agency to use this provision for the purpose of summoning the accused from another jail in order to answer a charge in investigation. That is why the word investigation has been omitted in this Section. The provision of Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . can not be invoked in order to facilitate the investigating agency to make formal arrest. On the other hand, C.B.I's contention is that the word other proceeding' appearing under Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . would include investigation. Interpretation of the statute should be liberal and harmonious. It should not be construed in such a way that it should whittle down the powers of the Court.

(8) Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . reads as under; Section 267 (1)Whenever, in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court, - (a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or (b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness, the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court for answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or, as the case may be, for giving evidence.

(15) I have considered the rival contentions put forward by the counsel. So far as the case of Mysore High Court is concerned, that is distinguishable on the facts. There the High Court was dealing with the issuing of general search warrant for the purpose of collecting evidence in the investigation for which investigation sanction was accorded by the Magistrate himself. Moreover, the Court took the view that for the purposes of collecting evidence in respect of an offence suspected to have been committed it can issue search warrant even if it is at the stage of investigation because Section 4(1) of the Old Code (which corresponds to Section 2(h) of the new Code defines 'investigation'. It means all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. Search warrant under section 93 are also issued for the purposes of collecting such evidence. Therefore, it was in this background that the Court took the view that the commission of the word 'investigation' from para 3 of Section 96(1) Is immaterial because there the police officer wanted to collect the evidence and the Magistrate by issuing the search warrant aided him to do so. But in the present case that is not so. So far as Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . is concerned it cannot be used as a sheet anchor by the police, to serve its purpose. The police cannot use the services of the Court for requiring the attendance of an accused from another jail to enable the police to arrest him in another case. There is no difficulty in reaching to this conclusion. In arriving at the decision I am supported from the language used in the Forms No.36 and 37 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure which are used under Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . Reading of Form 36 makes it clear that the attendance of the person is required in the Court to answer to charge or the proceeding pending in the Court. Form No.37 Schedule two deals with.. the production of the person from another jail for the purposes of giving evidence. There is no other form prescribed in the Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code under Section 267 empowering the Magistrate to issue the warrants compelling the attendance of the person from another jail in order to answer a charge in investigation. Therefore, the observation made by the Mysore High Court while interpreting para 3 of Section 96(1) of the Old Code will have be of no help in the interpretation of Section 267 of the new Code nor the word "other proceeding" used in Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . can be stretched to such an extent that the word 'investigation' could be covered.

(16) The word "other proceedings" used in Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . would mean proceedings pending in Court. For example case under Section 145 and 146 Criminal Procedure Code . are neither inquiry nor trial. Such cases are in fact covered under the definition of "other proceedings" appearing under Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . It is keeping in view such like cases that legislature used the expression 'any other proceedings'. But this by no stretch of imagination would mean investigation. The import of the legislature becomes clear from the reading of the title under chapter Xxii which indicates attendance of persons confined Section 267 Criminal Procedure Code . deals with Court's power to require attendance of a prisoner. Now this power to my mind cannot be used to facilitate the investigating agency. It is only when Court requires the attendance of a person lodged in another jail it will exercise this power and that too for limited purpose i.e. to answer a charge in a trial or inquiry or in the proceedings pending before him or to require his presence as a witness for giving evidence and for no other purpose. The legislature in order to ensure that this power may not be misused made it sure that it be exercised by a senior judicial officer. Therefore when attendance is required by a Magistrate of second class, it made it clear that the said order shall not be acted upon by the officer in charge of the prison unless counter signed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.