CrPC 167 — Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Statutory text

(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.
 (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,  authorise  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:
Provided that—

[(a) the  Magistrate  may  authorise the detention  of  the  accused  person,  otherwise  than  in  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 authorise 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;]

[(b)  no  Magistrate  shall  authorise  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  the
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;]
 (c) no  Magistrate  of  the  second  class,  not  specially  empowered  in  this  behalf  by  the  High  Court,  shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.

[Explanation I.—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 II.—If  any  question  arises  whether  an  accused  person  was  produced  before  the  Magistrate  as
required  under  clause  (b),  the  production  of  the  accused  person  may  be  proved  by  his  signature  on  the  order
authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.]

[Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution.]

[(2A) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-section (1) or  sub-section (2),  the  officer  in  charge  of  the police  station  or  the  police  officer  making  the  investigation,  if  he  is  not  below  the  rank  of  a  sub-inspector,  may,
where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a
Judicial  Magistrate  or  Metropolitan Magistrate  have  been  conferred,  a  copy  of  the  entry  in  the  diary  hereinafter
prescribed relating to the  case, and shall, at  the  same  time,  forward the  accused to such  Executive  Magistrate, and
thereupon  such  Executive  Magistrate,  may,  for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing,  authorise  the  detention  of  the
accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and, on the
expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be released on bail except  where an order
for  further  detention  of  the  accused  person  has  been  made  by  a  Magistrate  competent  to  make  such  order;  and,
where an order  for  such  further  detention  is  made,  the  period  during  which  the  accused  person  was  detained  in custody  under  the  orders  made  by  an  Executive  Magistrate  under  this  sub-section,  shall  be  taken  into  account  in computing the period specified in paragraph (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2):
Provided  that  before  the  expiry  of  the  period  aforesaid,  the  Executive Magistrate  shall  transmit  to  the  nearest
Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together with a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which
was transmitted to him by the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be.]
(3) A Magistrate authorising under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing.
 (4) Any  Magistrate  other  than  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  making  such  order  shall  forward  a  copy  of  his order, with his reasons for making it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period
of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further
investigation  into  the  offence  unless  the  officer  making  the  investigation  satisfies  the  Magistrate  that  for  special
reasons  and  in  the  interests  of  justice  the  continuation  of  the  investigation  beyond  the  period  of  six  months  is necessary.
(6) Where  any  order  stopping  further  investigation  into  an  offence  has  been  made  under  sub-section (5),  the

Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be  made, vacate  the  order  made  under sub-section (5) and direct further investigation  to be  made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify.

STATE AMENDMENTS
Gujarat In the proviso to sub-Section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in its application to the State of Gujarat, —
(i) for paragraph (a), the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely: —
(a) the Magistrate may authorise 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 authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this section for a total period exceeding—
(i)  one  hundred  and  twenty  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 offence;
and, on the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days, or sixty days, as the ease 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
section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for the words “no Magistrate shall” the words “no Magistrate shall, except for reason to
be recorded in writing” shall be substituted;
(iii)  the  Explanation  shall  be  numbered  as  Explanation  II,  and  before  Explanation  II  as  so numbered,  the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely: —
Explanation I. —For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused person shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.
Amendment  to  apply  to  pending  investigation.—The  provisions  of section  167 of  the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure,  1973,  as  amended  by  this  Act,  shall  apply  to  every  investigation  pending  immediately before  the
commencement  of  this  Act,  if  the  period  of  detention  of  the  accused  person,  otherwise  than  in  the  custody  of  the police, authorised under that section, had not, at such commencement, exceeded sixty days.]
[Vide Gujarat Act 21 of 1976, s. 2 & 3]
Gujarat In Section 167, in sub-section (2) : —
(1) in the proviso, for paragraph (b), the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely: —
“(b) no Magistrate shall authorise further detention in any custody under this section unless—
(i) where the accused is in the custody of police, he is produced in person before the Magistrate, and
(ii)  where  the  accused  is  otherwise  than  in  the  custody  of  the  police, he  is  produced  before  the  Magistrate
either  in  person  or  through  the  medium  of  electronic  video  linkage,  in  accordance  with  the  direction  of  the Magistrate.”;
(2) in Explanation II, after the words “ whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate”, the words “in person or, as the case may be, through the medium of electronic video linkage” shall be inserted.
[Vide Gujarat Act 31 of 2003, s. 2.]
Chhattisgarh
(1) In clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 of the principal Act, for the word “any” the word “police”
shall be substituted.
(2) After clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Principal Act, the following new sub-clause (bb)
shall be added, namely:—
“(bb) No magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused person other than in the custody of the police under
this  section  unless  the  accused  is  produced  before  him  either  in  person  of  through  the  medium  of  electronic  video linkage and represented by his pleader in the Court.”

(3) In explanation II, after words “was produced” the word “from police custody” shall be added.
(4) After explanation II, the following new explanation shall be added:-
“III. If any question arises  whether an accused person  was produced from otherwise than in the custody of the
police  in  person  or  (as the  case  may  be)  through  medium  of  electronic  video  linkage  before  the  Magistrate  as
required under paragraph (bb), the production of the accused person may be proved by his or his pleader’s signature on the order authorising detention.”
[Vide Chhattisgarh Act 13 of 2006, sec. 3]
Union territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Lakshadweep In section 167,—
(i)  in  sub-section  (1)  after  the  words “nearest  Judicial  Magistrate” the  words “or,  if  there is  no
Judicial Magistrate in an island, to an Executive Magistrate functioning in that island” shall be inserted;
(ii) after sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:—
“(1A) Where a copy of the entries in diary is transmitted to an Executive Magistrate, reference in section 167
to a Magistrate shall be construed as references to such Executive Magistrate;”
(iii) to sub-section (3), the following proviso shall be added, namely:—
“Provided that no Executive Magistrate other than the District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall
unless he is specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, authorise detention in the custody of the police.”
(iv) to sub-section (4), the following proviso shall be added, namely:—
“Provided that,  where  such  order  is  made  by  an  Executive  Magistrate,  the  Magistrate making the  order
shall forward a  copy  of  the  order, with his reasons for  making it, to the Executive  Magistrate to whom he is immediately subordinate.”
[Vide The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Regulation, 1974 Act (1 of 1974), s. 5.]
Maharashtra Amendment of section 167. — In Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974) in its application to the State of Maharashtra,—
(a) in sub-section (2) in the proviso, for paragraph (b), the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely:—
(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody, of the accused person under this section
unless,  the  accused  person  is  produced  before  him  in  person,  and  for  any  extension  of  custody
otherwise  than  the  extension  in  the  police  custody,  the  accused  person  may  be  produced  either  in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage.” ;
(b) in Explanation II, for the words “an accused person was produced”, the words “an accused person
was produced in person or as the case may be, through the medium of electronic video linkage” shall be substituted.
[Vide Maharashtra Act 8 of 2005, s. 2]
Madhya Pradesh Amendment  of  Section  167.—In  sub-section  (2)  of  section  167  of  the  principal  Act,— (i)  in the proviso, for paragraph (b), the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely: —
 “(b)  no magistrate  shall  authorise  detention  in  any  custody  under  this  section  unless  the  accused  is
produced  before  him  in  person  for the  first time  and  subsequently every  time  till  such  time  the  accused
remains  in the custody of police, but the  Magistrate may extend  further detention in judicial custody on
production of accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;”;
 (ii) for Explanation II, the following Explanation shall be substituted, namely:—
“Explanation II.—If  any  question  arise  whether  an  accused  person  was  produced  before  the
Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his

signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be.”.
[Vide Madhya Pradesh Act 2 of 2008, s. 3.]
West Bengal In section 167 of the principal Act,—
(a) In Section 167 of sub-section (5), the following sub-section shall be substituted:—
“(5) If, in respect of—
(i) any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons case, the investigation is not concluded within
a period of six months, or
(ii)  any  case  exclusively  triable  by  a  Court  of  Session  or  a  case  under  Chapter  XVIII  of  the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the investigation is not concluded within a period of three years, or
  (iii)  any  case  other  than  those  mentioned  in  clauses  (i)  and  (ii),  the  investigation  is  not
concluded within a period of two years, from the date on which the accused was arrested or made
his  appearance,  the  Magistrate  shall  make  an  order  stopping  further  investigation  into the  offence
and shall discharge the accused unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate
that for special reasons  and in the  interests  of justice the  continuation of the  investigation beyond the periods mentioned in this sub-section is necessary.”;
(b) in sub-section (6), after the “words any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made” the words “and the accused has been discharged” shall be inserted.
 [Vide West Bengal Act 24 of 1988, s. 4.]
West Bengal Amendment of section 167.- In the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of the principal Act, for clause (b), the following clause shall be substituted:—
“(b) no Magistrate shall authorize detention under this section—
(i)  in  the  police  custody,  unless  the  accused  is  produced  before him  in  person  every time  till  the
accused is in police custody;
(ii) in  the  judicial custody,  unless  the  accused  is  produced before  him  either in person  or through the medium of electronic video linkage;”.
[Vide West Bengal Act 20 of 2004, s. 3.]
Assam In Section 167 of the Code:—
(a) in sub-section (i) the reference to “Judicial Magistrate” shall be construed as reference also to
executive Magistrate;
(b) in sub-section (2):—
(i) for the word “Magistrate” at the first two places where that word is preceded by the definite
article, the words “Judicial Magistrate or the Executive Magistrate, as the case may be,” shall be
substituted;
(ii) for the word “Magistrate”, at the place where that word is preceded by the indefinite article
“a”, the words and brackets “Magistrate (whether Judicial or Executive)” shall be substituted;
(iii) paragraph (c) of the proviso shall be omitted;
(c) Sub-section (2A) shall be omitted:—
(d)  in  sub-section  (4),  for  the  words “to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,” the words “where such
Magistrate  is  a  Judicial Magistrate,  to  the Chief Judicial Magistrate  and  where such Magistrate  is  an Executive Magistrate to the Session Judge” shall be substituted.
[Vide Assam Act 3 of 1984, s. 3(3) and the Schedule.]
Delhi In its application to the State of Delhi, in section 167, in sub-section (2):—

(i) for clause (b), substitute the following clause, namely:—
“(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is
produced before him either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage:
Provided that if the accused is in police custody, no Magistrate shall authorise his detention in any
custody unless the accused is produced before him in person;”
(ii) for the Explanation II thereunder, substitute the following Explanation, namely:—
“Explanation II.- If any question arises  whether an accused person  was produced in person  or, as
the  case  may  be,  through  the  medium  of  electronic  video  linkage  before  the  magistrate  as  required
under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising his detention or by video recording of the proceedings, as the case may be.”.
[Vide Delhi Act 4 of 2004, s. 2 (w.e.f. 16-8-2004).]
Orissa Amendment of section  167.—In  the  proviso  to  sub-section  (2)  of  section  167  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-
(i) for paragraph (b), the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely:—
“(b) no Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in custody of  the  police  under  this
section unless the accused in produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every
time  till  the  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;”, and
 (ii) for Explanation II, the following Explanation shall be substituted, namely:—
“Explanation II— If  any  question  arises  whether  an  accused  person  was  produced  before  the
Magistrate  as  required under paragraph (b), the  production of the accused person may be  proved  by
his  signature  on  the  order  authorizing  detention  or  by  the  order  certified  by  the  Magistrate  as  to
production  of  the  accused  person  through the  medium  of  electronic  video  linkage,  as  the  case  may be.”.
[Vide Orissa Act 16 of 2009, s. 2]
Amendment of section 167.— In section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in paragraph (a)
of the proviso to sub-section (2),—
(i) For the words “under this paragraph” the words “under this section” shall be substituted; and
(ii) For the words “ninety days” wherever they occur, the words “ one hundred and twenty days”
shall be substituted.
[Vide Orissa Act 11 of 1997, s. 2]

Back to CrPC