1983 (3) TMI 311 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate to authorize detention after submission of charge-sheet but before commitment to Sessions Court.
2. Interpretation of Sections 167, 207, 209, and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
3. The legality of detention and the right to bail after the expiry of the prescribed period for investigation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate to Authorize Detention:
The primary issue was whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to authorize the detention of an accused after the submission of the charge-sheet but before the commitment order to the Sessions Court was made. The High Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand the accused to custody after the charge-sheet was submitted and before the commitment order was made. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that the proceedings before the Magistrate from the submission of the police report under Section 170 until the order of commitment under Section 209 would be considered an inquiry. During this period, Section 309(2) would enable the Magistrate to remand the accused to custody.

2. Interpretation of Sections 167, 207, 209, and 309 of the CrPC:
- Section 167: The High Court correctly concluded that on the expiry of 60 days from the date of arrest, if the charge-sheet is not submitted, the accused is entitled to bail if they are prepared to furnish bail. However, the High Court erroneously interpreted that the Magistrate had no power to remand the accused to custody after the charge-sheet was submitted and before the commitment order was made.
- Section 207: This section mandates the Magistrate to furnish copies of documents to the accused. The Supreme Court emphasized that this obligation is a judicial function and forms part of the inquiry.
- Section 209: The High Court interpreted that the Magistrate must commit the accused to the Sessions Court immediately upon receipt of the charge-sheet. The Supreme Court clarified that the Magistrate must first ensure compliance with Section 207 before committing the accused to the Sessions Court.
- Section 309: The Supreme Court stated that if the proceedings before the Magistrate are considered an inquiry, Section 309(2) would allow the Magistrate to remand the accused to custody during the period of the inquiry.

3. Legality of Detention and Right to Bail:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's interpretation introduced a stage of compulsory bail not envisaged by the Code. The High Court had directed the release of the respondents on bail, reasoning that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand them to custody before the commitment order was made. The Supreme Court set aside this view, stating that the proceedings before the Magistrate constitute an inquiry, and during this period, the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to remand the accused to custody under Section 309(2).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order granting bail to the respondents on the grounds that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand them to custody before the commitment order was made. The Supreme Court clarified that the proceedings before the Magistrate from the submission of the police report until the order of commitment constitute an inquiry, during which the Magistrate can remand the accused to custody under Section 309(2).