TAJ SINGH Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for the grant of bail for the petitioner Taj Singh in case FIR No. 196186 under Ss. 307/302/34 Indian Penal Code and Ss. 25/54/59 Arms Act of Police Station Narela the short question which calls for determination is as to whether investigation of the case would be said to be complete in terms of S. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), when the Investigating Officer submitted the challan before the magistrate on 27-1-87 [the 90th day in. terms of the proviso (a) (i) to sub-section (2) of S. 167 of the Code] without appending thereto the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as CFSL) which report has been made admissible in evidence under S. 293 of the Code without the same being proved in the ordinary manner by the deposition of the expert making the same, in the witness-box.

(2.) Before embarking upon the decision of this legal point it would be desirable to point out a few dates germane to this case. The occurrence took place on 29-10-1986 and the petitioner Taj Singh was arrested as an accused on the next day. i.e., 30-10-86. The material exhibits, i.e., clothes and the knife were taken into possession by the police on 30-10-1986 and sent to CFSL on 1-1-1987 for opinion and report back to the Station House Officer of P. S. Narela and the same were despatched by CFSL to Station House Officer, Narela vide communication dated 27-1-1987. It is not known whether it reached the Investigating Officer on that very day or on some subsequent date. It was, however, stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer though relied upon the report of CFSL, did not append the same with the charge-sheet while forwarding the charge-sheet to the magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence under S. 190 of the Code. Whether the Investigating Officer had actually received or not the CFSL report when he forwarded the challan on the 90th day, i.e. on 27-1-1987, the fact remains that the charge-sheet was otherwise complete minus the CFSL report.

(3.) Under the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 167 of the Code the detention of an accused person in a case is the present one cannot be authorised by the magistrate beyond a total period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and on the expiry of the said period of 90 days the accused person must be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. S. 162 of the Code embracing this provision of law is reproduced below:- "S 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 twentyfour 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. C2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try this 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 for the purposes of that Chapter. (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him; (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. [Explanation 1.-For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detamed in custody so long as he does not furnish bail]. Explanation II.-If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention].