AMAR PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 21-1-94 passed by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, in criminal revision no. 47 of 1994 allowing the application of the investigating Officer for giving the applicants in police custody for one day and setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, dated 13-1-1994 whereby he had refused to grant police remand.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicants filed an affidavit in support of this revision staying therein that the applicants surrendered in court on 4-1-94 and they were taken into custody in connection with case crime no. 174 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 I.P.C. relating to police station Narsena, district Bulandshahr. The Investigating Officer moved an application before the Magistrate on 8-1-1994 praying that the applicants may be given in police custody for getting recovery of certain articles made at their pointing out. That prayer of the Investigating Officer was turned down by the Magistrate on 13-1-94. Against that order the State filed criminal revision no. 47 of 1994 before the Sessions Judge, who after examining the material on record allowed the revision and directed the applicant to be given in police custody for one day by means of the order dated 21-1-94.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants contented that the provisions of Sec. 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplate that the police custody of an accused can be granted by the Magistrate on being satisfied on adequate grounds for a period not exceeding fifteen days. After fifteen days remand the accused person can only be detained in Judicial custody and he cannot be given in the police custody after first fifteen days' remand. The learned Sessions Judge has granted 20 days' time on 21-1-94 for filing revision before the High Court and obtain stay. On 9-2-94, the date of presentation of this revision, the period of first 15 days' detention had already expired in continuation of which the applicants have been directed to be given in police custody whereas no court has jurisdiction to authorise police custody of an accused after first 15 days remand and in support of this contention he relied upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Central Bureau of Special Investigating Cell v. Anupam K. Kulkarni reported in 1992 All Cri C 512 : (1992 Cri LJ 2768).