1992 (10) TMI 271 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Section 267 Cr.P.C. for interrogation during investigation.
2. Remand under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and its periodicity.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue I: Invocation of Section 267 Cr.P.C. for Interrogation During Investigation

Contention of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that Section 267 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked for the purpose of investigation. The section is intended to be used for summoning an accused for inquiry or trial, not for investigation. The petitioner emphasized that "investigation" is deliberately omitted in Section 267, indicating the legislature's intent not to include it under "other proceedings."

Court's Interpretation:
The court analyzed Section 267 Cr.P.C. and concluded that it allows the production of an accused from another prison only for inquiry, trial, or other court proceedings, not for investigation. The term "other proceedings" does not encompass investigation, which is a distinct process conducted by the police or an authorized person, not by the court.

Supporting Precedents:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's principle in Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi Vs. Union of India, emphasizing the need to interpret statutes literally unless it leads to absurdity. The court also discussed the "ejusdem generis" rule, which limits the scope of general terms following specific ones to the same category.

Conclusion:
The court held that Section 267 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to facilitate the investigating agency's interrogation of an accused. The section is meant for court proceedings, not for aiding police investigations.

Issue II: Remand Under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and Its Periodicity

Contention of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that remand under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. must be renewed every 15 days, and failure to do so renders the detention illegal. The petitioner cited various precedents to support the claim that continuous detention without periodic remand is contrary to law.

Court's Interpretation:
The court examined Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which mandates that an accused must be produced before a magistrate for remand every 15 days. The court emphasized that this provision is designed to prevent malpractices and ensure judicial oversight over the detention process.

Supporting Precedents:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in cases like Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Raj Narain Vs. Supdt. Jail, which underscore the necessity of periodic remand and the magistrate's role in authorizing detention.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the investigating agency must seek remand every 15 days, and failure to do so makes the detention illegal. However, the court also noted that illegal detention does not automatically entitle the accused to bail; the appropriate remedy is a petition for habeas corpus.

Final Observations:
The court observed that in the present case, the remand was not sought after 25th August 1992, making the detention illegal. However, since the petitioner was not in custody at the time of the hearing, the bail application became infructuous. The court disposed of the petition with these observations.