Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

6/23/2017 PrintArticle:RemandshouldnotbemadeMechanically

RemandshouldnotbemadeMechanically

Source:http://articlesonlaw.wordpress.com
Author:YSRAOJUDGE
Publishedon:June16,2012

RemandshouldnotbemadeMechanically YSRAOJUDGE'sProfileand
details
''AcarefulreadingofS.167(1),Cr.P.C.wouldshowthatan
investigatingofficercanaskforremandonlywhenthereare
groundsforbelievingthattheaccusationorinformationiswell
foundedanditappearsthattheinvestigationcannotbecompleted
withintheperiodof24hoursfixedbyS.57.Therefore,itfollows
thataremandbyaMagistrateisnotanautomaticoneand
sufficientgroundsmustexistfortheMagistratetoexercisetheir Y.SRINIVASARAO,
powersofremand.'' M.A(English).,B.Ed.,LL.M.
JudicialMagistrateofI
Article22(1)givespersonarrestedatwofoldprotection,viz.(1) ClassTopperinLL.M
thatanarrestedpersonshallnotbedetainedincustodywithout
beingtoldthegroundsofsuchanarrestand(2)thatheshallbeentitledtoconsultandtobedefended
byalegalpractitionerofhischoice.Article22(2)givesyetanotherprotectionstatingthatevery
personwhoisarrestedanddetainedincustodymustbeproducedbeforethenearestMagistrate
within24hoursexcludingthetimenecessaryforthejourneyfromthetheplaceofarresttotheCourt
ofMagistrateandthatnosuchpersonshallbedetainedincustodybeyondthesaidperiodwithoutthe
authorityofaMagistrate.Section50,Cr.P.C.whichisacorollarytoArticle22,Clause(1)and(5)of
theConstitutionofIndia,enacts,thatthepersonsarrestedshouldbeinformedofthegroundofarrest,
andofrighttobail.Section57.Crl.P.C.whichisalsoinconsonancewithArticle22(2)ofthe
ConstitutionofIndia,providesthatnopoliceofficershalldetain,incustodyapersonarrested
withoutwarrantforalongerperiodthanunderallcircumstancesisreasonableandsuchperiodshall
notintheabsenceofaspecialorderofaMagistrateunderSection167exceed24hoursexclusiveof
thetimenecessaryforthejourneyfromtheplaceofarresttotheMagistrate'sCourt.Theprecautions
laiddowninArticle22(1)and(2)oftheConstitutionandSection56.CrP.Cwhichrequiresa
personarrestedwithoutwarranttobetakenbeforeaMagistrateorofficerinchargeofapolice
stationwithoutunnecessarydelayandSection57,Cr.P.C.seemtobedesignedtosecurepersons
arrestedwithoutwarranttobeproducedbeforeaMagistratewithoutunnecessarydelayandinany
casewithanupperlimitof24hourswithoutaspecialorderoftheMagistrate,ofcourse,excluding
thetimenecessaryforthejourneytotheCourtfromtheplaceofarrest,Section167.Cr.P.C.deals
withtheprocedurewheninvestigationcannotbecompletedin24hours.Itisnotnecessaryforthe
purposeofthiscasetoelaboratelygointothehistorybehindtheimportanceandobjectofthe
constitutionalprovisionsaswellastheotherprovisionsofthegenerallaw.

Itwasheldinthecase''GulabChandUpadhyayaVsStateOfU.P.AndOrs.[3]''Nowaboutthe
powersofMagistratetooverridetheinvestigatingagencyevenduringpendencyofinvestigation.
Firstly,hecanreleasetheaccusedbyrefusingremand(Section167).Secondly,hecangrantbailto
accused(Section437).Thirdly,hecanreleaseseizedproperty(Section457).Fourthly,during
progressofinvestigationbypolice,theMagistrateisempoweredbySection164torecordany
confessionalstatement.HeisalsoempoweredbythesameSectiontorecordonoathanystatement
otherthanconfession,andthatstatementwouldformanimportantpartofinvestigation.Fifthly,if
investigationisinprogressandinthemeantimeacriminalcomplaintisfiledtheMagistratecan
requirethe'investigatingofficer'tosubmita"report"underSection210(1).Thepropositionthatthe
word"report"inSubsection(1)ofSection210meansa'report'underSection173,issupportedby
someprecedents,withexceptionsalso.ButIamoftheviewthatitcouldonlymeanachargesheetor
finalreport(underSection173).ThisviewisbaseduponSubsections(2)ofSection210which
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1179 1/4
6/23/2017 PrintArticle:RemandshouldnotbemadeMechanically

expresslyreferstoSection173andalsouponthefactthatsubsection(3)ofSection210cancome
intoplayonlyifthepolicereportcalledunderSection210(1)isachargesheetorfinalreport.From
alltheseprovisionsitisclearthatthoughtheMagistrateisnotexpectedtointerveneindaytoday
investigationbutheisnotcompletelydeprivedofhispowerstilltheendofinvestigation.

TheHon'bleAllahabadHighCourtinGulabChandUpadhyayav.StateofU.P.(2002CriLJ2907)
:2002(1)ACr.R644heldthatthearrestisnodoubtapartofinvestigationbuttheMagistratecan
placerestrictionuponthepowerofarrestofpolice.

InRajPalSinghv.StateofU.P.,itwasobservedthatthatremandordercannotbewithout
applicationofmindanditmustnotbeinaroutineandmechanicalmanner.Butallthesame,itdoes
notrequirethattheordersheetshouldlooklike,ajudgmentdeliveredafterfulltrial.

ItwasobservedinLaxmiNarainGuptavsState[4]that''Alongwiththepresentpetitionatleast
another20caseshavebeenlisted,wheretheaccusedareinjudicialcustody,merelybecausetheyare
poor.Ineachofthosecases,directionshavebeenpassedbytheCourtscoacerned,foradmittingthem
tobail.Theyareinjudicialcustomarybecausetheyhavenotbeenabletoarrangeasuretywhilethe
ordersfortheirjudicialremandsarebeingpassedinaroutinemanner.''

InKamiSanyalvDist.Magistrate,DarjeelingtheSupremeCourt,reaffirmingitsearlierviewtaken
inB.R.Raov.StateofOrissa,observedthatonlythetimeofthereturnandnottheinstitutionofthe
proceedingsisthecrucialdateandthat"whileapersoniscommittedtojailcustodybyacompetent
Courtbyanorder,whichprimafaciedoesnotappeartobewithoutjurisdictionorwhollyillegal,a
writofhabeascorpusinrespectofthatpersoncannotbegranted.SeealsoA.K.Gopalanv.Govt.of
India.31.AFullBenchofthePatnaHighCourtinBabunandanMallahv.State1972CriLJ423has
takentheviewthatitisnotaconditionprecedentforavalidorderunderSection344(1A)..Cr.P.C.
(1898)(correspondingtoSection309ofthenewCode)thattheaccusedmustatthetimeofthe
passingoftheorderofremandbeinvalidcustody.Ithasbeenheldthatthecrucialdatewhenthe
legalityoftheremandistobelookedintoisthedatewhenthepetitioncomesupforhearing,inKana
v.StateofRajasthan1980CriLJ344theJaipurBenchoftheRajasthanHighCourt,referringtothe
FullBenchdecisionofthePatnaHighCourt,inBabunandanMallahv.State1972CriLJ423held
that"ifthedetentionoftheaccusedislegal,whenthebailapplicationispreferred,hisprevious
illegaldetentionshouldnotbeconsidered."(SeealsothejudgmentinNagalingamv.Staterendered
byaBenchofthisCourtconsistingofGokulakrishnanandSuryamurthy,JJ.inW.P,No.1638/80on
2141980,whereinthesaidBenchdismissedthewritpetitiononthegroundthatonthedateofthe
returntherewasalegalorderofremand.)

Mr.K.V.Sankaran,relyingonthedecisioninInReMadhuLimayeAIR1969SC1014:1969Cri
LJl440hascontendedthatasthearrestofJeevakhanbythepoliceistaintedwithanillegalityandas
hehadbeenkeptunderpolicecustodyfor(far?)overthestatutoryperiodandastheremandbythe
Magistratehadalsobeenpassedinapatentlyroutineandmechanicalmannerwithoutapplyinghis
mindtoalltherelevantmatters,thedetenuisentitledtobesetatliberty.

Aftercarefullygoingthroughtheabovedecisions,weareoftheviewthatthedecisioninInre
MadhuLimayeAIR1969SC1014:1969CriLJ1440cannotbeavailedofbythedetenuJeevakhan,
sinceitisnothiscasethathedidnotknowthenatureoftheallegedoffencesforwhichhewas
arrestedorthattheremandmadebytheMagistrateon2981981waswithoutanyjurisdictionorthat
thefactsandcircumstancesofthecasedidnotwarrantanorderofremandbytheMagistratewhen
Jeevakhanwasremandedtojudicialcustodyon2981981orthattheremandorderwasnotpassed
byacompetentMagistralhavingjurisdiction.Ontheotherhandathoroughexaminationofthe
documentsfiledinthiscaseinclusiveoftheremandreport,disclosesthatJeevakhanwascommitted
tojudicialcustodybyacompetentcourt,byanorder,whichprimafaciedoesnotappeartobe
withoutjurisdictionorinanywayillegal.Itispatentlyclearinthiscasethattherewasavalidand
legalremandorderonthedateofthereturn.
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1179 2/4
6/23/2017 PrintArticle:RemandshouldnotbemadeMechanically


ItwasheldinG.K.Moopanar,M.L.A.AndOthersvsStateOfTamilNadu''Undertheprovisions
oftheCriminalProcedureCode,thedutyofthepoliceofficeristoproducethearrestedpersons
beforetheconcernedMagistratewithin24hoursalongwiththeirremandreportandacopyofthe
diarymaintainedbyhimatthetimeoftheremandasrequiredunderS.167,Cr.P.C.Thereafter,itis
fortheconcernedMagistratetoapplyhismindandsatisfyhimselfthattheaccusedshouldbe
remandedtojudicialorpolicecustody.''

AcarefulreadingofS.167(1),Cr.P.C.wouldshowthataninvestigatingofficercanaskforremand
onlywhentherearegroundsforbelievingthattheaccusationorinformationiswellfoundedandit
appearsthattheinvestigationcannotbecompletedwithintheperiodof24hoursfixedbyS.57.
Therefore,itfollowsthataremandbyaMagistrateisnotanautomaticoneandsufficientgrounds
mustexistfortheMagistratetoexercisetheirpowersofremand.Thatisthereasonwhyitisrequired
thatacopyoftheentriesinthediaryshouldbeforwardedtotheMagistratealongwiththearrested
persons.Thisisthesecondstageinremandingtheaccusedpersons.

InElumalaiv.StateofTamilNadu,1983MadLW(Cri)121,aBenchofthisCourtpointedoutthat
remandshouldnotbemademechanicallyandasamatterofroutineandsuchroutinesshouldbe
deprecated.

InElumalai'scase(1983MadLW(Cri)121)hasclearlyindicatedtheimportanceoftheprovisions
containedinS.167(2),Cr.P.C.Inthefollowingwords:"Foraspeedytrial,theprosecutionagencies
alsomusttakeapromptstepincompletingtheirinvestigationsandfilingtheirfinalreportsas
contemplatedundertheCodeasexpeditiouslyaspossible.Incasetheinvestigatingofficerfailsto
takespeedyactioninacaseregisteredagainstanypersonarrestedunderS.41(1),S.151(1)orany
otherpenalprovisionofthelaw,andkeepsitincoldstorage,forgettinghisobligationtothesociety
andincontraventionoftheprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandallow,byhisconduct,thearrested
personstobekeptbehindthebars,formonthstogetherandiftheCourtswithoutbeingconsciousof
themandatoryprovisionsofS.167(2),mechanicallyauthoriserepeateddetentionandalsodonot
showanydiligenceincompletingthetrialofthecasespeedily,theresultwouldbethatprisoners,
especiallythosecomingfromthesocietyofhavenots,havetosufferuntoldphysicalandmental
agonyandspendtheirlivesinthejailwithouthavinganyrayofhopeoftheirrelease."

ThedecisioninKrishnaIyer,J.,inMantooMajumdarandDasdevSinghv.StateofBihar,1980
MadLW(Crl)(SN)17:(1980CriLJ546)(SC)whereinitwasobservedthatthemagistrate
concernedhavebeenpracticallyauthorisingrepeateddetentions,unconsciousoftheprovisions
whichobligatedthemtomonitortheproceedingswhichwarrantsuchdetention.TheBench
concludeditsdiscussionbyholdingthatallpossiblebreachthatmayresult,fromdelaysbetweenthe
timeaprosecutingofficerdiscoverssufficientevidencetoproceedagainsttanaccusedpersonandthe
timeofinstitutingthoseproceedingistobeguardedagainstbyCourtswhichareobligedtothe
society.

Conclusion:
Iftheprimafacieaccusationorinformationisnotwellfoundedandsufficientgroundsdonotexist
fortheMagistratetoexercisehispowerofremand,insuchcases,remandofaccusedcanberefused.
Afortiori,aremandbyaMagistrateisnotanautomaticoneandsufficientgroundsmustexistforthe
Magistratetoexercisetheirpowersofremand.''Judicialremandsshouldnotbepassedinaroutine
manner.''
******
#1990CriLJ2685G.K.Moopanar,M.L.A.AndOthersvsStateOfTamilNadu
#1983CriLJ1009JeevakhanAndOrs.vsOfficerInChargeOf'Q'BranchOfTamilNaduPolice
#2002CriLJ2907
#ILR1986Delhi635
#Itwasobservedin1983CriLJ1009JeevakhanAndOrs.vsOfficerInChargeOf'Q'BranchOf
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1179 3/4
6/23/2017 PrintArticle:RemandshouldnotbemadeMechanically

TamilNaduPolice
#1983CriLJ1009JeevakhanAndOrs.vsOfficerInChargeOf'Q'BranchOfTamilNaduPolice
#1983CriLJ1009JeevakhanAndOrs.vsOfficerInChargeOf'Q'BranchOfTamilNaduPolice
#1990CriLJ2685
#1990CriLJ2685G.K.Moopanar,M.L.A.AndOthersvsStateOfTamilNadu
#1990CriLJ2685G.K.Moopanar,M.L.A.AndOthersvsStateOfTamilNadu
#1990CriLJ2685G.K.Moopanar,M.L.A.AndOthersvsStateOfTamilNadu

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/print.php?art_id=1179 4/4