Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Section 167, therefore, is the provision which authorises the Magistrate permitting detention of an accused in custody and prescribing the maximum period for which such detention could be ordered. Having prescribed the maximum period, as stated above, what would be the consequences thereafter has been indicated in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167. The proviso is unambiguous and clear and stipulates that the accused shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish the bail which has been termed by judicial pronouncement to be "compulsive bail" and such bail would be deemed to be a bail under Chapter 33. The right of an accused to be released on bail after expiry of the maximum period of detention provided under Section 167 can be denied only when an accused does not furnish bail, as is apparent from Explanation I to the said section. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 is a beneficial provision for curing the mischief of indefinitely prolonging the investigation and thereby affecting the liberty of a citizen. Section 167 occurs in Chapter 12 dealing with the powers of the police to investigate in a criminal offence which starts with lodging of information in cognizable cases under Section 154, and ultimately culminating in submission of a report on completion of investigation under Section 173. Soon after completion of investigation the officer-in-charge of the police station has to forward to the Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offence, a report in the prescribed form and once such report is filed before the Magistrate which is commonly termed as "challan" then the custody of the accused is no longer required to be dealt with under Section 167 of the Code, but under Section 209. On submission of the challan under Section 173 in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, when it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the moment the accused is brought before the Magistrate or he himself appears then the Magistrate commits the case to the Court of Session and subject to the provisions of the Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made. The procedure for commitment to the Court of Session as provided in Section 209 of the present Code is radically different from the commitment proceedings under the 1898 Code. No enquiry is contemplated by the Magistrate under the present scheme. All that the Magistrate is required to do is to grant copies, prepare the records, notify the Public Prosecutor and formally commit the case to the Court of Session. Section 209(b) provides that the Magistrate shall remand the accused to custody subject to the provisions of the Code relating to bail, necessarily, therefore, subject to the provisions in Sections 436, 437 and 439. Thus, under clause (b) of Section 209 the committing Magistrate has the power to remand the accused to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial, subject to the provisions relating to bail. When the committing Magistrate passes an order of commitment and the accused, at the stage is found to be on bail, the committing Magistrate has the power to cancel the bail and commit him to custody, if he considers it necessary to do so. But such a cancellation would be in accordance with sub- section (5) of Section 437 of the Code and there must be proper grounds for cancellation and not that the Magistrate would cancel the bail ipso facto on a challan being filed and the accused being produced for the purpose of passing an order of committal. Any order a Magistrate passes under Section 209(b) to remand an accused to custody would also obviously be subject to the provisions of the Code relating to bail. In a case where the committing Magistrate while passing an order of committal remands the accused to custody in exercise of power under Section 209(b), the power of the learned Sessions Judge under sub-section (2) of Section 309 is not whittled down in any manner at any time after commencement of trial, but ordinarily if the committing Magistrate has already passed an order remanding the accused to custody while passing an order of commitment no further order is required to be passed by the Sessions Judge in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 309. Bearing in mind the aforesaid scheme in the Code of Criminal Procedure we would now examine the point in issue.