THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1929 of 2008 JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 11.12.2008 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.45 of 2008 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order, dated 24.11.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1827 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar in Crime No.1 of 2008 of Karimnagar (Rural) Police Station. When the Criminal Revision Case came up for admission, with the consent of the both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of this revision by the accused in Crime No.1 of 2008 of Karimnagar (Rural) Police Station are that the petitioner/accused came to be arrested during the course of investigation in Crime No.1 of 2008. Since the investigation is not completed even after the expiry of 90 days from the date of his arrest, he filed Crl.M.P.No.1726 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This application came to be allowed on 14.10.2008 and consequently, the learned Magistrate granated bail. Thereafter, the Station House Officer, Karimnagar (Rural) Police Station filed Crl.M.P. No.1827 of 2008 seeking cancellation of the bail allowed to the petitioner under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. The application filed by the Station House Officer ended in dismissal on 24.11.2008. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “ It is also contended by the police that the Public Prosecutor of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has directed them not to proceed with further investigation till the disposal of the revision petition. The police have also enclosed a copy of letter of Public Prosecutor of Hon'ble High Court. On perusing the letter of Public Prosecutor of Hon'ble High Court, he has mentioned in his letter that the accused shall not be liable to be subjected to the Lie Detection Test in view of the orders of Hon'ble High Court for a period of two weeks or till the date of hearing of the case. The Public Prosecutor has nowhere instructed the police not to proceed with further investigation. It is the duty of the Investigation Officer to complete the entire investigation within (90) days, if not the accused is entitled for bail under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I feel that there are no grounds to allow this petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed.” The Station House Officer, Karimnagar (Rural) Police Station assailed the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1827 of 2008 by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.45 of 2008 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The learned District and Sessions Judge proceed to allow the revision on the premise that the conduct of the petitioner/accused in approaching the Hon'ble High Court is a factor for delay in investigation and thereby allowed the revision setting aside the order passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar in Crl.M.P.No.1827 of 2008. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case. Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the reasoning given by the Sessions Court in allowing the revision is wholly unsustainable in the teeth of Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as hereunder:- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours - (2)The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has nto jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he 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 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 paragraph for a total period exceeding--- (i) ninety days, where the investigatgion relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisosnment 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 to released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;] (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him; (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. A plain reading of the above referred section indicates that the Magistrate cannot authorise the detention of the accused person beyond the 90 days wherein the investigation relating the offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years is not completed. Indisputably, the learned Magistrate granted bail to the petitioner/accused since the investigation is not completed despite lapse of 90 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner/accused. The petitioner is not responsible for completion of the investigation by the police. Therefore, the reason assigned by the learned District and Sessions Judge,Karimnagar, for setting aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1827 of 2008 is wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _____________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 5th August, 2009 bud