Question B: AIR 1964 Man 39

Question B The question is concerned about the matter of detention of the arrested person specifically right to be brought before
a Magistrate within 24 hours. The issue to the question is whether the application for a remand under section 117 of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) made by Insp. Oscar for the extension of Ah Loongs detention should be granted or not. Basically, when a person is being arrested, he must be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours without unreasonable delay. This principle was stated under Article 5(4) of Federal Constitution. This provision was also in line with section 28(3) CPC which specifically address towards the police officer who arrested a person without a warrant in course of investigation. The law of criminal procedure mention that, when an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the police officer may apply for further detention of arrested person by virtue of section 117 CPC. Provided that the investigation officer must produce the accused and a copy of investigation diary before the Magistrate. It means that an extension of detention under section 117 CPC can only be granted by the Magistrate if only the police officer made an application of remand order to the Magistrate and produce the accused person together with the investigation diary before the Magistrate. If further detention of the accused is granted, the Magistrate shall record his reasons for granting the remand order. In an indian case of Nabachandrar v Manipur Administration1, the court ruled that when made an application of remand order, it is necessary to bring the accused together with the copy of police diary before the court and the Magistrate can only decide whether to grant remand order or not after he satisfied the necessity of the extension of detention period on a perusal of the said diary. Applying to the question given, by virtue of section 117 CPC, it is necessary for Insp. Oscar to produce Ah Loong before the Magistrate before the expiration of 24 hours of investigation in order for him to extend the detention period of Ah Loong in order for police to complete the investigation of the crime. In his application of remand order, by virtue of the same provision and the principle of Nabachandarars case, Insp. Oscar is also required to produce a copy of investigation diary before the Magistrate in order for the Magistrate to
AIR 1964 Man 39.
decide whether to grant the remand order or not. If this rule is fulfilled, the Magistrate may grant the remand order for extra period of Ah Loongs detention. However, the crucial terms under section 117(1) CPC is the requirement to transmit a copy of entries of day to day proceedings of the officer conducting the police investigation into the investigation diary. It must be noted that, section 117 CPC comes together with section 119(1) CPC which specify what need to be recorded in the investigation diary. In the case of Re Detention of R Sivarasa & Ors2, the High Court set aside the Magistrates remand order as the Magistrate failed to appreciate the strict requirement of section 117(1) CPC which is mandatory duty for the investigation officer to transmit to the Magistrate a copy of entries of day to day proceeding into the investigation diary when he applied for remand order. It is fatal to the application for the extension of detention as it meant that as the Magistrate did not have the necessary material fact whether to order further demand or not. In the case of Re Syed Mohammad b Syed Isa & 3 Ors3, the court held that the entries must describe adequately the diligence and the state of the investigation and the statement of circumstances ascertained through the investigation indicating. In applying to the question given, the application of remand order made by Insp. Oscar was submitted together with the investigation diary which describe the state of investigation. The Magistrate has to determine whether the investigation diary was described in day to day basis or not about the investigation state. Using the strict requirement of section 117(1) and 119(1) CPC and the Principle in the case of Re Detention of R Sivarasa, the remand order can only be granted if the Magistrate is satisfied the detail of the investigation state recorded in the investigation diary. However, the information prescribed in the investigation diary produced by Insp. Oscar was not transmitted into day to day basis which would be fatal to the Magistrate to decide whether to grant remand order or not as he does not has necessary material facts in granting the application. In addition, the remand order can only be made based on the maximum punishment of the offences being investigated. Section 117(2) CPC which amended by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act mentioned that the detention period for the offence punishable with less than 14 years of imprisonment shall not more than four days for the first application and shall not more than three days for the second application. And for the offence
2 3
[1996] 3 MLJ 611 [2001] 2 AMR 3769 at 3778
punishable with death or imprisonment of 14 years or more, the detention shall not more than seven days for the first and second application. In applying to the question, if Ah Loong is being charged under section 411 of Penal Code (PC) the punishment of such offence is imprisonment for not more than five years. On the other hand, Insp. Oscar is applying for eight days of remand order to complete the investigation. Applying the new principle of section 117(2), the maximum period of remand order for offence under section 411 PC is seven days in two application. The first application will got 4 days of remand order. If the investigation process still cannot be completed within those period, the investigation officer can still apply for another three days of remand order. As in this situation, the application of remand order by Insp. Oscar is not in line with the new amendment of section 117(2). Thus the magistrate may refuse to grant the remand order. In conclusion, despite the application of remand order by Insp. Oscar who produced Ah Loong, who is suspected as receiving stolen property and the investigation diary, the Magistrate still can refuse to grant the remand order on the ground that the investigation diary was not transmitted into day to day basis and the application of eight days remand order is not in line with the new amendment of section 117(2).

Question B: AIR 1964 Man 39

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Question B: AIR 1964 Man 39

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Question B: AIR 1964 Man 39

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Question B The question is concerned about the matter of detention of the arrested person specifically right to be brought before

AIR 1964 Man 39.

[1996] 3 MLJ 611 [2001] 2 AMR 3769 at 3778

You might also like