1980 (1) TMI 215 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the period of detention in police custody under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while calculating the total period of 90 days or 60 days under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed the question of whether the period of detention of an accused person in police custody under Section 167 should be included when calculating the total period of 90 days or 60 days under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure before and after the amendment by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1978. The amendment did not change Sub-sections (1) and (2) but modified the proviso to Sub-section (2), extending the total detention period to 90 days for serious offenses and 60 days for other offenses. The court emphasized that the power of a Magistrate to grant police custody for 15 days is separate from the custody under Section 57 and is not affected by it.

The court further discussed the historical context of the amendment, highlighting the need to expedite investigations and prevent prolonged detention without completing the investigation. The court noted that the amendment aimed to grant additional time for investigations in complex cases while ensuring the accused's rights and preventing unnecessary detention. The judgment also referenced the changes brought by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the liberty of citizens and expediting investigations in criminal cases.

Regarding the interpretation of the proviso, the court analyzed the wording change from "section" to "paragraph" and concluded that the total detention period mentioned in the proviso includes the period authorized by the Magistrate under Sub-section (2). The court rejected the argument that the Magistrate's power of detention was limited to 60 days "under this section," stating that the maximum detention period under the proviso encompasses the Magistrate's authorization under Sub-section (2). The court found support for its interpretation in the legislative intent behind the amendment, as reflected in the "Notes on clauses" accompanying the Amendment Bill.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled that the period of detention authorized by the Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 must be included when calculating the total period of 90 days or 60 days under the proviso. The judgment directed the matter to be returned to the learned single Judge for further proceedings based on this interpretation.