{"id":174122,"date":"1975-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975"},"modified":"2017-01-17T18:07:25","modified_gmt":"2017-01-17T12:37:25","slug":"natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975","title":{"rendered":"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan … vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan … vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1465, \t\t 1975 SCR 137<\/div>\n
Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n
Bench: Untwalia, N.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNATABAR PARIDA BISNU CHARAN PARIDA BATAKRUSHNAPARIDA BABAJI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ORISSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/04\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 1465\t\t  1975 SCR  137\n 1975 SCC  (2) 220\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1987 SC 149\t (21)\n R\t    1992 SC1768\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\nCode  of  Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections  167  and\t344-\nRemand\tof  an accused to custody-Courts, if  have  inherent\npower.\nCode  of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 167(1),  Proviso\n(a)  to\t Section  167(2),  428\tand  484(2)(a)-Investigation\npending\t at  the commencement of the Act and  not  completed\nwithin\tthe period of 60 days-Accused, if has a right to  be\nreleased on bail.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  respect of an occurrence which took place on 8th  March,\n1974,  at  a  place in the District  of\t Cuttack,  a  police\ninvestigation  commenced  in connection\t with  the  offences\nalleged to have been committed under sections 147, 148, 307,\n302  simpliciter as also with the aid of section 149 of\t the\nIndian\tPenal  Code.  Of the eight persons  arrested  during\ninvestigation,\tfour  have  been enlarged  on  bail  by\t the\nSessions  Judge of Cuttack, but the learned  Sessions  Judge\nrefused to grant bail to the four appellants.  Their conten-\ntion based on proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section\t 167\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was rejected by the\nlearned\t Judge\trelying\t on the saving clause  (a)  of\tsub-\nsection\t (2) of section 484.  The High Court  also  rejected\ntheir  contention.  This appeal has been filed on the  basis\nof the special leave granted by the Supreme Court.\nHELD  : (i) A Magistrate having jurisdiction to try  a\tcase\ncould  remand an accused to jail custody from time  to\ttime\nduring the pendency of the investigation in exercise of\t the\npower  under section 344 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,\n1898.  In other words, the power of remand by the Magistrate\nduring\tthe  process  of  investigation\t and  collection  of\nevidence was an integral part of the process.  The power was\nmeant  to  be  exercised  whenever  necessary  to  aid\t the\ninvestigation and collection of further evidence. 14 1 E-F]\nA.Lakhmanrao   v.   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class\nParvatipuram  and  others,  [1970] 3 S.C.C.  501  and  Gouri\nShankar\t Jha  v.  The State of Bihar and  others<\/a>,  [1972]  1\nS.C.C. 564, relied on.\nThe   Superintendent  and  Remembrancer\t of  Legal   Affairs\nGovernment of West Bengal v. Bidhindra Kumar Roy and others<\/a>,\nA.I.R.\t1949, Calcutta 143; Chandradin Dubey v.\t The  State,\n1955  Bihar Law Journal Reports, 323; Dukhi and\t another  v.\nState  and  another,  A.I.R. 1955  Allahabad,  521;  Shrilal\nNandram\t & Another, v. R. R. Agrawal, S. D. M. First  Class,\nGwalior\t and  another  Kuttan,\tA.T.R.\t1964,  Kerala,\t232;\nArtatran  Mahasuara  and others v. State of  Orissa,  A.I.R.\n1956 Orissa, referred to.\n(ii)Courts  will  have no inherent power of  remand  of\t an\naccused to any custody unless the power is conferred by law.\nThe  High Court has crred in assuming, without reference  to\nsection\t 344  of the old Code, that such  a  power  existed.\n[140D]\n(iii)The  command of the Legislature in\t proviso(a)  to\nsection\t 167(2) of the new Code is that the  accused  person\nhas got to be released on bail if he is prepared to and does\nfurnish\t bail  and cannot be kept in  detention\t beyond\t the\nperiod\tof  60 days even if the investigation may  still  be\nproceeding.   Although\tthe  expression\t 'reasonable  cause'\noccurring in sub-section (1A) of section 344 is no where  to\nbe found in section 309 of the New Code, the explanation  to\nsection 344 of the Old Code has been retained as explanation\n1  to  Section 309 in the identical language.\tThe  law  as\nengrafted in\n\t\t\t    138\nproviso (a) to section 167(2) and section 309(2) of the\t New\nCode confers the powersof  remand to jail  custody  during\nthe pendency of the investigation only tinderthe former\nand not under the latter.  Section 309(2) is attracted\tonly\naftercognizance\t of  an\t offence  has  been  taken   or\ncommencement of trial has proceeded. [142G-H]\nQuere : What is the purpose of Explanation-1 in section\t 309\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.\n(iv)Unlike  the\t wordings of section 428  the  language\t of\nsection\t 167(1) which will govern sub-section (2) also,\t is-\n\"whenever  any person is arrested\", suggesting thereby\tthat\nthe section would be attracted when the arrest is made after\ncoming\tinto force of the Act of 1973.\tThe expression\tused\nin  section  428  is  \"where  an  accused  Person  has,\t  on\nconviction  been sentenced. . . . . \". To the facts  of\t the\npresent\t case, clause (a) of subsection (2) of\tsection\t 484\nwill  apply.  Immediately before the 1st day of April,\t1974\nthe  investigation of this case was pending.  Saving  clause\n(a) therefore, enjoins that the said investigation shall  be\ncontinued or made in accordance with Chapter XIV of the\t old\nCode.\tSection\t 167  of  that Code  could  not\t enable\t the\nMagistrate  to remand the appellants to jail custody  during\nthe  pendency of the investigation.  The police\t could\tseek\nthe  help of the Court for exercise of its power  of  remand\nunder  section 344, bringing it to the notice of  the  Court\nthat  sufficient  evidence  had been  obtained\tto  raise  a\nsuspicion that the appellants may have committed an  offence\nand  there  will be hindrance to the  obtaining\t of  further\nevidence unless an order of remand was made. [143C-D-144B-C]\nMr.   Boucher Pierre Andra v. Superintendent, Central  Jail,\nTihar, New Delhi and<\/a> another, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 164, referred\nto.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 359  of
\n1974.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the Judgment and\torder  dated
\nthe  6th  August 1974 of the Orissa High Court\tin  Criminal
\nMisc.  Case No. 180 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
Sharad Manohar, R. N. Nath and V. N. Gaupule, for the appel-
\nlant.\n<\/p>\n
Gobind Das, and B. Parthasarathi, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by :-
\nUTNTWALIA,  J.-An occurrence took place on the 8th of  March
\n1974 at a place situated in the District of Cuttack, Orissa.
\nFirst Information Report was lodged on the 9th March, 74 and
\na  police  investigation  started  in  connection  with\t the
\noffences alleged to have been committed under sections\t147,
\n148,  307, 302 simpliciter as also with the aid\t of  section
\n149  of the Indian Penal Code.\tThe four appellants in\tthis
\nappeal\tby special leave were arrested by the police in\t the
\ncourse of the investigation on the 8th March and four others
\nwho  have  been enlarged on bail by the\t Sessions  Judge  of
\nCuttack were arrested on the 14th March.  They were produced
\nbefore the Magistrate who remanded them to jail custody from
\ntime  to time.\tThe learned Sessions Judge released on\tbail
\nfour  of  the  accused\tbut refused to\tgrant  bail  to\t the
\nappellants.   An  argument based upon proviso  (a)  to\tsub-
\nsection\t (2)  of  section  167\tof  the\t Code  of   Criminal
\n,Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) hereinafter referred to
\nas the New Code, was rejected by the Sessions Judge  relying
\non the saving clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 484.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    139<\/span><\/p>\n
The appellants approached the Orissa High Court and  pressed
\ntheir cases for releasing them on bail on merits as well  as
\non the ground of the provision of law aforesaid contained in
\nthe New Code.  A Bench of the High Court by its order  dated
\nthe 6th August, 1974 has repelled the arguments put  forward
\non behalf of the appellants and dismissed their\t application
\nfor  bail.  They have filed the–present appeal\t by  special
\nleave of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
This Court is not expected to examine afresh the question of
\nreleasing  the\tappellants  on\tbail  on  merits.   But\t the
\nquestion  for  consideration is whether the  appellants\t are
\nentitled  to  be released on bail under the proviso  (a)  of
\nsection 167(2) of the New Code.\n<\/p>\n
The  New Code came into force on and from the 1st of  April,
\n1974.\tSection\t 484(1)\t repealed  the\tCode   of   Criminal
\nProcedure,  1898-hereinafter called the Old Code, But  there
\nwere  certain saving clauses engravers in  sub-section\t(2);
\nthe relevant clause (a) would be adverted to hereinafter  in
\nthis   judgment.   Before  doing  so  it  is  necessary\t  to
\nappreciate  the position of law in relation to the power  of
\nremand by a Magistrate during the course of investigation of
\na case by the police.\n<\/p>\n
A person arrested without warrant could not be detained by a
\npolice\tofficer for a period exceeding 24 hours as  provided
\nin section 61 of the Old Code.\tSection 167(1) required\t the
\npolice\tofficer\t to  forward  the  accused  to\tthe  nearest
\nMagistrate  if\tthe  investigation could  not  be  completed
\nwithin\tthe  period of 24 hours fixed by section 61  and  if
\nthere  were rounds for believing that  the  accusation\tor
\ninformation was well-founded.  Sub-section (2) provided
\n\t      “The  Magistrate to whom an accused person  is
\n\t      forwarded\t under this section may, whether  he
\n\t      has  or has not jurisdiction to try the  case,
\n\t      from  time to time authorise the detention  of
\n\t      the accused in such custody as such Magistrate
\n\t      thinks  fit, for a term not exceeding  fifteen
\n\t      days on the whole.  If he has not jurisdiction
\n\t      to  try the case or commit it for\t trial,\t and
\n\t      considers\t further detention  unnecessary,  he
\n\t      may  order  the accused to be forwarded  to  a
\n\t      Magistrate having such jurisdiction : ”\n<\/p>\n
The  Magistrate\t to  whom the accused  was  forwarded  could
\nremand him to police custody or tail custody for a term\t not
\nexceeding  15 days in the whole under section 167(2).\tEven
\nthe  Magistrate who had jurisdiction to try the\t case  could
\nnot  remand the accused to any custody beyond the period  of
\n15 days under section 167(2) of the Old Code.  There was  no
\nother  section which in clear or express language  conferred
\nthis power of remand on the Magistrate beyond the period  of
\n15 days during the pendency of the investigation and  before
\nthe taking of cognizance on the submission of  Charge-Sheet.
\nSection 344, however, enabled the Magistrate to postpone the
\ncorn-\n<\/p>\n
140<\/span><\/p>\n
mencement of any enquiry or trial for any reasonable  cause.
\nThe  explanation  to  section 344 of the Old  Code  read  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “If  sufficient evidence has been obtained  to
\n\t      raise  a suspicion that the accused  may\thave
\n\t      committed\t an offence, and it  appears  likely
\n\t      that  further  evidence may be obtained  by  a
\n\t      remand,  this  is\t a reasonable  cause  for  a
\n\t      remand.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Various\t High  Courts had taken the view that  a  Magistrate
\nhaving jurisdiction to try a case could remand an accused to
\njail  custody from time to time during the pendency  of\t the
\ninvestigation  in exercise of the power under section 344  :
\nto  wit,  The  Superintendent  and  Remembrancer  of   Legal
\nAffairs,  Government of West Bengal v. Bidhindra  Kumar\t Roy
\nand others<\/a>(1); Chandradi Dubey v. The State ( 2) , Dukhi and
\nanother\t v.  State  and another(3)  ;  Shrilal\tNandram\t and
\nanother v. R. R. Agrawal, S. D. M. First Class, Gwalior\t and
\nanother(1)  and\t State of Kerala v. Madhavan  Kuttan<\/a>(5).   A
\ncontrary view was taken by the Orissa High Court in the case
\nof Artatran Mahasuara and others v. State of Orissa(6).\t  It
\nmay  be\t emphasized here that the Court will  have  inherent
\npower  of  remand of an accused to any\tcustody\t unless\t the
\npower  is conferred by law.  In the order under\t appeal\t the
\nHigh Court without reference to section 344 of the Old Code,
\nseems  to have assumed that such a power existed.   That  is
\nnot correct.\n<\/p>\n
There  are  two decisions of this Court affirming  the\tview
\nexpressed by majority of the High Courts and over-ruling the
\none  taken by the Orissa High Court in the case referred  to
\nabove.\tIn  A. Lakshmanarao  v.\t Judicial-Magistrate,  First
\nClass  Parvatipuram and others<\/a>(7) an argument  was  advanced
\nthat section 344 falling in Chapter 24 of the Old Code which
\ncontained  general  provisions as to  enquiries\t and  trials
\ncould  not  apply  to  a case which  was  at  the  stage  of
\ninvestigation and collection of evidence only.\tDua, J deli-
\nvering\tthe  judgment on behalf of this Court  repelled\t the
\nargument thus at page 506.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “This  argument appears to us to be  negatives
\n\t      by  the express language both  of\t sub-section
\n\t      (1-A) and the explanation.  Under\t sub-section
\n\t      (1-A) the commencement of the inquiry or trial
\n\t      can also be postponed.  This clearly seems  to
\n\t      refer  to the stage prior to the\tcommencement
\n\t      of  the  inquiry.\t The  explanation  makes  it
\n\t      clear  beyond doubt that reasonable  cause  as
\n\t      mentioned\t in sub-section (1-A)  includes\t the
\n\t      likelihood   of  obtaining  further   evidence
\n\t      during  investigation  by securing  a  remand.
\n\t      The language of section 344 is unambiguous and
\n\t      clear and the fact that this section occurs in
\n\t      Chapter  24 which contains general  provisions
\n\t      as
\n\t      (1)   A.I.R. 1949, Calcutta, 143.
\n\t      (2)   1955 Bihar Law Journal Reports, 323.
\n\t      (3) A.I.R. 1955, Allahabad, 521.
\n\t      (4) A.I.R. 1960, Madhya Pradesh, 135.
\n\t      (5) A.I.R. 1964, Kerala, 232.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (6) A.I.R 1956 Orissa. 129
\n\t      (7) [1970] 3 S.C.C
\n\t\t\t\t   141<\/span>
\n\t      to  inquiries  and trials does not  justify  a
\n\t      strained construction.”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In   Gouri   Shankar  Jha  v.  The  State   of\t Bihar\t and
\nothers<\/a>(1)  Shelat, J. delivering the judgment on  behalf  of
\nthe Court\t  has said at page 569 :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In   cases  falling  under  section  167,   a
\n\t      magistrate undoubtedly can order custody for a
\n\t      period  at  the most of fifteen  days  in\t the
\n\t      whole and such custody can be either police or
\n\t      jail custody.  Section 344, on the other hand,
\n\t      appears  in  Chapter  XXIV  which\t deal\twith
\n\t      inquiries\t and trials.  Further,\tthe  custody
\n\t      which it speaks of is not such custody as\t the
\n\t      magistrate  thinks fit as in Section 167,\t but
\n\t      only jail custody, the object being that\tonce
\n\t      an enquiry or a trial begins it is not  proper
\n\t      to   let\tthe  accused  remain  under   police
\n\t      influence. Under\t  this\t  section,    a
\n\t      magistrate can remand an accusedperson  to
\n\t      custody for a term not exceeding fifteen\tdays
\n\t      ata time provided that sufficient evidence
\n\t      has  been collected to raise a suspicion\tthat
\n\t      such  an accused person may have committed  an
\n\t      offence  and  it appears likely  that  further
\n\t      evidence\t may  be  obtained  by\tgranting   a
\n\t      remand.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Farther says the learned Judge at page 570 :
\n\t      “The  fact  that\tSection 344  occurs  in\t the
\n\t      Chapter dealing with inquiries and trials does
\n\t      not  mean that it does not apply to  cases  in
\n\t      which   the  process  of\t investigation\t and
\n\t      collection of evidence is still going on.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It would thus be seen that under the Old Code the Magistrate
\nwas  given the power under section 344 to remand an  accused
\nto jail custody as the section was also applicable to  cases
\nin which process of investigation and collection of evidence
\nwas  going on.\tIn other words, the power of remand  by\t the
\nMagistrate   during   the  process  of\t investigation\t and
\ncollection of evidence was an integral part of the  process.
\nThe power was meant to be exercised, whenever necessary,  to
\naid the investigation and collection of further evidence.
\nLet  us now examine the position of law under the New  Code.
\nNo  police officer can detain a person in custody,  arrested
\nwithout\t a  warrant, for a period longer than  24  hours  as
\nmentioned  in section 57 corresponding to section 61 of\t the
\nOld Code.  Section 167 occurring in Chapter XII bearing\t the
\nheading\t “Information  to  the police and  their  powers  to
\ninvestigate”-the same as in Chapter XIV of the Old  Code-has
\nmade  some drastic departure.  Similar, is the\tposition  in
\nregard\tto  section  309 of the New  Code  corresponding  to
\nsection 344 of the Old Code.  While retaining the  provision
\nof  forwarding\tthe accused to the  nearest  Magistrate\t (of
\ncourse\tunder the New Code to the Judicial Magistrate),\t and
\nwhile  authorising the Magistrate to remand the\t accused  to
\neither police or judicial custody for a period not exceeding
\n15 days, proviso (a) has been added in these terms
\n(1)  [1972] 1 S.C.C. 564.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    142<\/span><\/p>\n
“Provided that-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   the\t Magistrate may authorise  detention
\n\t      of  the  accused\tperson,\t otherwise  than  in
\n\t      custody  of the police, beyond the  period  of
\n\t      fifteen days if he is satisfied that  adequate
\n\t      grounds exist for doing so, but no  Magistrate
\n\t      shall  authorise the detention of the  accused
\n\t      person  in  custody under this section  for  a
\n\t      total period exceeding sixty days, and on\t the
\n\t      expiry  of the said period of sixty days,\t the
\n\t      accused person shall be released on bail if he
\n\t      is  prepared  to and does\t furnish  bail;\t and
\n\t      every  person  released  on  bail\t under\tthis
\n\t      section  shall  be deemed to  be\tso  released
\n\t      under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the
\n\t      purposes of that Chapter ;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The expression “the Magistrate” in the proviso
\n\t      would  the Magistrate having  jurisdiction  to
\n\t      try the case.  Section 309 (2) says
\n\t      “If  the Court, after taking cognizance of  an
\n\t      offence,\tor commencement of trial,  finds  it
\n\t      necessary\t  or  advisable\t to   postpone\t the
\n\t      commencement  of, or adjourn, any\t inquiry
\n\t      or  trial,  it  may, from time  to  time,\t for
\n\t      reasons  to be recorded, postpone\t or  adjourn
\n\t      the  same on such terms as it thinks fit,\t for
\n\t      such time as it considers reasonable, and\t may
\n\t      by a warrant remand the accused if in  custody
\n\t      :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Although the expression ‘reasonable cause’ occurring in sub-
\nsection\t (IA)  of  section 344 is no where to  be  found  in
\nsection 309 of the New Code, the explanation to section\t 344
\nof  the\t Old  Code has been retained  as  Explanation  I  to
\nSection 309 in the identical language.\tThe law as engrafted
\nin proviso (a) to sections 167(2) and section 309 (2) of the
\nNew Code confers the powers of remand to jail custody during
\nthe pendency of the investigation only under the former\t and
\nnot  under  the latter.\t Section 309(2)\t is  attracted\tonly
\nafter\tcognizance   of\t an  offence  has  been\t  taken\t  or
\ncommencement  of trial has proceeded.  In such\ta  situation
\nwhat  is the purpose of Explanation-I in section 309 is\t not
\nquite  clear.\tBut then the command of the  Legislature  in
\nproviso\t (a)  is  that\tthe accused person  has\t got  to  be
\nreleased on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish\tbail
\nand cannot be kept in detention beyond the period of 60 days
\neven  if  the  investigation may still\tbe  proceeding.\t  In
\nserious offences of criminal conspiracy-murders,  dacoities,
\nrobberies  by inter-state gangs or the like, it may  not  be
\npossible  for  the police, in the circumstances as  they  do
\nexist  in the various parts of our country, to complete\t the
\ninvestigation  within  the  period  of\t60  days.   Yet\t the
\nintention  of  the  Legislature\t seems to  be  to  grant  no
\ndiscretion to the court and to make it obligatory for it  to
\nrelease\t the  accused  on  bail.  Of  course,  it  has\tbeen
\nprovided  in proviso (a) that the accused released  on\tbail
\nunder section 167 will be deemed to be so released under the
\nprovisions  of Chapter XXXIII and for the purposes  of\tthat
\nChapter.  That may empower the court releasing him on  bail,
\nif  it\tconsiders necessary so to do, to  direct  that\tsuch
\nperson\tbe arrested and committed to custody as provided  in
\nsub-section  (5) of section 437 occurring in Chapter  XXXHI.
\nIt is also clear that after the taking of the cognizance the
\n\t\t\t    143<\/span>
\npower of remand is to be exercised under section 309 of\t the
\nNew  Code.   But  if  it is not\t possible  to  complete\t the
\ninvestigation  within  a  period of 60\tdays  then  even  in
\nserious\t and  ghastly types of crime, the  accused  will  be
\nentitled  to  be released on bail.  Such a law may  be\ta  ”
\nparadise for the criminals,” but surely it would not be\t so,
\nas  sometimes it is supposed to be, because of\tthe  courts.
\nIt would be so under the command of the Legislature.
\nBut the question in this case is whether during the pendency
\nof the investigation which started before coming into  force
\nof  the\t New  Code the appellants  can\tpress  into  service
\nproviso (a) to section 167 (2) of that Code and claim to  be
\nreleased on bail as a matter of right when they are prepared
\nto furnish bail.  The answer to this question depends on the
\ninterpretation\tof  sections 167 and 484 of  the  New  Code.
\nUnlike\tthe wordings of section 428 the language of  section
\n167(1) which will govern sub-section (2) also,\tis-“whenever
\nany person is arrested”, suggesting thereby that the section
\nwould be attracted when the arrest is made after coming into
\nforce of the Act.  While the expression used in section\t 428
\nis  “where  an\taccused\t person\t has,  on  conviction,\tbeen
\nsentenced……..  Interpreting\t such a phrase it  has\tbeen
\nheld  in  the case of Mr. Boucher Pierre Andra\tv.  Superin-
\ntendent,  Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi and  another(1)  by
\nBhagwati,  J. delivering the judgment of this Court at\tpage
\n166 :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “This section, on a plain natural construction
\n\t      of its language, posits for its  applicability
\n\t      of  fact situation which is described  by\t the
\n\t      clause  “Where  an  accused  person  has,\t  on
\n\t      conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for
\n\t      a\t term”.\t  There is nothing  in\tthis  clause
\n\t      which   suggests,\t either\t expressly   or\t  by
\n\t      necessary implication, that the conviction and
\n\t      sentence\tmust be after the coming into  force
\n\t      of the New Code of Criminal Procedure.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We  may, however, hasten to add that in spite of the  phrase
\n“is  arrested”\toccurring in section 167(1), since  the\t Old
\nCode has been repealed by sub-section (1) of section 484  of
\nthe New Code, the provision would have applied, a  fortiori,
\nif  the\t savings provided in subsection (2) would  not\thave
\napplied to the situation with which we are concerned in this
\ncase.\tIn  our\t judgment clause (a) of\t subsection  (2)  of
\nsection 484 does apply.\t It reads as follows
\n“Notwithstanding such repeal,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)If,  immediately,  before  the\t date  on
\n\t      which this Code comes into force, there is any
\n\t      appeal,\tapplication,   trial,\tinquiry\t  or
\n\t      investigation  pending,  then,  such   appeal,
\n\t      application,  trial, inquiry or  investigation
\n\t      shall be disposed of, continued, held or made,
\n\t      as  the case may be, in accordance  with the
\n\t      provisions  of the Code of Criminal  Procedure
\n\t      1898,  as\t in force  immediately\tbefore\tsuch
\n\t      commencement, (hereinafter referred to as\t the
\n\t      Old  Code), as if this Code had not come\tinto
\n\t      force”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1)A.I.R. 1 975 S.C. 164.\n<\/p>\n
144<\/span><\/p>\n
Immediately   before  the  1st\tday  of\t April,\t  1974\t the
\ninvestigation  of this case was pending.  Saving clause\t (a)
\ntherefore  enjoins  that  the said  investigation  shall  be
\ncontinued  or made in accordance with the provisions of\t the
\nOld  Code.   The  police  officer,  therefore,\tmaking\t the
\ninvestigation has to continue and complete it in  accordance
\nwith Chapter XIV of the Old Code.  Section 167 of that\tCode
\ncould not enable the Magistrate to remand the appellants  to
\njail custody during the pendency of the investigation.\t The
\npolice could seek the help of- the Court for exercise of its
\npower of remand under section 344, bringing it to the notice
\nof  the Court that sufficient evidence had been obtained  to
\nraise a suspicion that the appellants may have committed  an
\noffence\t and  there will be hindrance to  the  obtaining  of
\nfurther evidence unless an order of remand was made.  As  we
\nhave  said  above,  invoking the power of  the\tcourt  under
\nsection\t 344  of the Old Code by the  Investigating  Officer
\nwould be a part of the process of investigation which is  to
\nbe continued and made in accordance with the Old Code.\tThat
\nbeing  so, we hold that the appellants in this\tcase  cannot
\nclaim to be released under proviso (a) to section 167(2 ) of
\nthe New Code.\n<\/p>\n
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
V. M. K.\n<\/p>\n
145<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan … vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1465, 1975 SCR 137 Author: N Untwalia Bench: Untwalia, N.L. PETITIONER: NATABAR PARIDA BISNU CHARAN PARIDA BATAKRUSHNAPARIDA BABAJI Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/04\/1975 BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. FAZALALI, SYED […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNatabar Parida Bisnu Charan ... vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan ... vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-17T12:37:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan … vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-17T12:37:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2897,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975\",\"name\":\"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan ... vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-17T12:37:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan … vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan ... vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan ... vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-17T12:37:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan … vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975","datePublished":"1975-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-17T12:37:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975"},"wordCount":2897,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975","name":"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan ... vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-17T12:37:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natabar-parida-bisnu-charan-vs-state-of-orissa-on-16-april-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan … vs State Of Orissa on 16 April, 1975"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}