STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. P. NAZARUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi dated 19.9.1990 refusing to remand the Respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 124A, 153 (B)(i)(c), 295A and 505(i)(c) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent herein was arrested on 19.9.1990 and was produced before the learned Judicial magistrate, Karaikudi on the same day requesting for the remand of the accused. But the learned Magistrate has not remanded on the ground that under Section 196(3) sanction is a must for taking cognizance by the Court and in this case as sanction was not obtained, the arrest itself was illegal and therefore, he was not remanding the accused person.

(2.) ON a perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate I find that the has wrongly referred to Section 155(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the arrest of the accused in this case. Section 155 of Criminal procedure Code is applicable only to the non -cognizable cases by the police. All the offences referred to in the Remand Report are cognizable by the Police and therefore, it was a mistake on the part of the learned Magistrate for referring Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case.

(3.) UNDER Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a person was arrested and detained in custody and investigation could not be completed within twenty -four hours, he could be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate for remand, Irrespective of the question whether the Magistrate was empowered to try the offence or not, he has to remand a person when produced under Section 167(2). Therefore, in this case as the offences are cognizable by the Police, there is nothing illegal in arresting the accused and the Magistrate before whom he was produced, was bound to remand the accused person. The Court below was misguided by Section 196(3) even before the stage has reached him, for the trial of the case. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.