The document summarizes Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to procedures when an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours of arrest. It provides 3 key points: 1) If an investigation is not completed within 24 hours, the investigating officer must transmit case diary entries to the nearest magistrate and forward the accused. 2) The magistrate may authorize detention in custody for up to 15 days total, and may extend judicial custody for a maximum of 90 or 60 days depending on the offense. 3) The accused must be produced before the magistrate in person for any custody authorization, and is entitled to bail after the maximum custody period unless charges are filed.

1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
CHAPTER XII
SECTION 167:- Procedure when investigation cannot be
completed in twenty four hours
BY ARUNDHATI BANERJEE

2. BARE ACT LANGUAGE EXPLANIED
(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot
be completed within the period of twenty four hours fixed by section 57 and there are grounds for
believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station or
the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith
transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating
to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
FLOW CHART FOR EASY EXPLANATION
ANY PERSON ARRESTED AND
DETAINED
INVESTIGATION NOT
COMPLETE
WITHIN 24
HOURS
UNDER SEC
57
BELIEVED TO
HAVE FULL
INFORMATION
POLICE
OFFICER OR
I.O
NOT BELOW
THE RANK OF
SUB-INSPECTOR
TRANSMIT TO
JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE
COPY OF ENTRIES
ALONG WITH THE
ACCUSED

3. SECTION 167 CONTINUED…
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or
has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorize the detention of the accused in such
custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, and if he has no
jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may
order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction.
IN EASY WORDS
Maximum 15 days police custody as a whole if the Magistrate has no jurisdiction and then he has to
transfer the accused to the Magistrate who has jurisdiction.

4. SECTION 167 CONTINUED…
Provided that,-
(a) The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the
police beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no
Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total
period exceeding,-
(i) Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years,
(ii) Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence
And, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days or sixty days as the case may be, the accused person shall
be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released, on bail under this
sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that
Chapter.
IN EASY WORDS
After police custody the Magistrate can give judicial custody for 90 and 60 days but not beyond that. This
exceeding of days can only be done after the investigation and bail is not furnished.

5. SECTION 167 CONTINUED…
(b) No Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless
the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till they accused
remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on
production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage.
IN EASY WORDS
If the Magistrate wants to extend the judicial custody the accused shall be present in person or through
video conference. But in police custody the accused should be presented before the Magistrate in person
every time.

6. SECTION 167 CONTINUED…
(c) No Magistrate of the second class, not specifically empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall
authorize detention in the custody of the police.
Explanation 1 – for the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that notwithstanding the expiry of the
period specified in paragraph (a) the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.
Explanation 2 – if any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the magistrate
IN EASY WORDS
No Magistrate of second class is allowed to give police custody but he can give judicial custody as this
section is silent on this matter.

7. POINTS TO REMEMBER
• When an under trial prisoner is produced before the Magistrate after the maximum period of 90 or 60
days, it is the duty of the Magistrate to inform him that he is entitled to be released on bail.
• The Magistrate or the sessions Judge before whom the accused appears is under an obligation to inform
the accused that if he is unable to engage a lawyer on account of poverty he is entitled to obtain free
legal service at the cost of the State.
• During police custody signature of accused is mandatory. But in video conference the magistrate himself
will certify the presence of the accused.
• The word ‘remand’ has not been defined in the Code. However, it is used in Section 209 & 309 of the
Code. Generally when a prisoner is sent back to custody by a Court/Magistrate after a preliminary or
partial hearing to be reproduced on the next date fixed, the prisoner is said to have been remanded to
custody.
• For invoking Section 167(1) it is necessary that the arrest should have been made only by a police officer
and no one else and there need not necessarily be the records of entries in a case diary.

8. POINTS TO REMEMBER CONTINUED…
• The Judicial Magistrate whom the accused is so forwarded may (whether he has or has not jurisdiction,
to try the case.) from time to time, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks
fit a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole.
• First 7 days will also be included in 90 & 60 days of remand.
• When any investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and the accusation is well founded, the
police officer is required to send a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case along with the
accused to the nearest Magistrate. The object is to enable the Magistrate to see that if the remand is
necessary. The object of requiring the presence of the accused before the Magistrate for the purpose of
remand is only to enable him to make representation he wishes to make in the matter.
• The entire object of Section 167 is to facilitate investigation and not detention without trial. The idea is
to prevent disappearance of material evidence and to prevent vexatious and belated prosecutions,
clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of the trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

9. CASES RELATED TO THIS SECTION
MANOJ vs. STATE OF M.P. AIR 1999
It was held by the Court that there are two obligations of the police officer, one is that if he knows that
investigation cannot be completed within 24 hrs. after the arrest of the accused, he must transmit a copy of the
case diary to the nearest Magistrate and secondly, he must forward the accused to such magistrate
simultaneously. If he fails to do so, the detention of the accused in the police custody would become unlawful.
CHAGANTI SATYANARAYANA vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AIR 1986
It has been held by the Court that the period of 90 days under section 167(2) of the Code shall be computed
from the date of remand of the accused and not from the date of his arrest under section 57 of the Code.
UDAY MOHAN LAL vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AIR 2001
The Supreme Court has held that an order in necessary to give effect to the mandate of the proviso and the bail
is to be furnished in accordance with such order.
STATE OF M.P. vs. RUSTAM AIR 1995
The Supreme Court held that while computing the period of 90 days the day on which the accused was
remanded to the judicial custody should be excluded and the day on which the challan is filed in the Court
should be included.

10. CASES CONTINUED…
WEST BENGAL vs. DINESH DALMIA AIR 2007
1. It was held that Section 167 is not applicable on surrender and 60 or 90 days to be counted from
production warrant.
2. Every 15 days in a Judicial Custody, the accused will be produced before the Magistrate to such further
custody. (Periodic revival)
3. There may be a case where full 15 days police custody may be granted by the Judicial Magistrate.
4. There may be a case where no police custody and only judicial custody would be granted by the Judicial
magistrate.
5. Multiple FIR’s may prompt the Judicial Magistrate to award police custody for more than 15 days. Same
thing applies for multiple offences or separate offences.
MANUBHAI RATILAL vs. STATE OF GUJRAT AIR 2013
It was held that an order of remand is a judicial order passed in exercise of the judicial function. Such function
cannot be passed mechanically.

11. CASES CONTINUED…
ABDUL BASIT vs. MOHD ABDUL KHADER AIR 2014
It was held that an order for release on bail under section 167 (2)(a) is not an order on merits but an
order on the default of the prosecution agency. Such an order could be nullified for special reasons
after the default have been cured. The accused therefore cannot claim any special right to remain on
bail. If the investigation reveals that the accused had committed a serious offence and the charge sheet
is filed, the bail granted under section 167(2)(a) could be cancelled on an application by the
prosecuting agency.

12. THANK YOU
PLEASE LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE