Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XII: Information to the Police and Their Powers to Investigate
Section 167: Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
(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.] 1. Subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 13, for paragraph (a) (w.e.f. 18-12-1978). 2. Subs. by Act 5 of 2009, s. 14, for cl. (b) (w.e.f. 31-12-2009) 3. Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 13 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978). 4. Subs. by Act 5 of 2009, s.14, for Explanation II (w.e.f. 31-12-2009).
[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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 167
-
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Whether in each and every case, even arising out of an offence under Penal Code, 1860 now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 would it be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith…
-
The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali
When victim herself has stepped into witness box, whether her examination can be done in piecemeal.
-
Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Whether the arrest of the appellant’s son was per se illegal for want of supply of appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest, as alleged.
-
State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma
Issue arose whether the term imprisonment for a term “not less than 10 years” in clause (i) of the proviso (a) to s.167(2) Cr.P.C would include an offence where the punishment of 14 years of imprisonment is prescribed,…
-
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(i) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent no.2 u/s.319 of…
-
Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana
Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC; Whether Proviso to s.372 of CrPC creates a…
-
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.
Access to free and timely legal aid for prison inmates.
-
Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani & Anr.
Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable at the instance of an accused while he is already in judicial custody in connection with his…
-
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
Accused-petitioner was granted absolute interim protection of anticipatory bail by Supreme Court, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the present SLP which was pending consideration before this Court.…
-
Basamsetti Rama Devi v. The State of A.P. & Ors.
In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and…
-
Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement
The issue involved in these appeals concerns the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant an interim order of stay of operation of an order granting bail till the disposal of the application for cancellation…
-
Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office
(a) Whether the complaint filed u/s.44(1)(b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be governed by sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC; (b) If the accused was not arrested by the ED till the filing of the…
-
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Whether the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused-appellant was vitiated as the copy of the remand application was not provided to him or his counsel before passing of the order of remand thus, not informing him…
-
The State of West Bengal v. Jayeeta Das
Whether the order dated 07.04.2022, whereby the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court permitted the addition of the offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 to the case suffer from any illegality or…
-
Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand
The issue for consideration was the compliance of the requirements of a Police Report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending,…
-
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
-
State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely
The High Court granted default bail to the respondent u/s. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent.
-
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.
Whether the arrest of the appellants u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was valid; whether there was proper compliance with s.19(1) of the Act of 2002 and as to whether the Vacation Judge/Additional…
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam
In cases relating to offences arising out of the Vyapam Scam, respondents-accused filed applications seeking direction to supply a Hindi translation of the charge sheet filed by the appel lant in English language.…
- V. Senthil Balaji v. The State Represented by
-
Dhanraj N Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh
Whether the provisions of s.81(5B) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 can be construed as preventing a share holder of the society such as the app ellant, who was also an erstwhile director, from…
- Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 : 2001
- Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India & Ors.
-
Enforcement Directorate Government of India v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. Etc
Matter pertains to application filed by the appellant seeking clarification of the judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Court in Crl App Nos. 701-702 of 2020, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil…
- Ansar Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra
- Qamar Ghani Usmani v. The State of Gujarat
- Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. Etc
- The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy
- Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
- Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited
- Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi & Ors.
- Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency
- Mla From Mau District, UP v. Jail Superintendent (Ropar) & Ors.
- Neena Aneja & Anr. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.
- Fakhrey Alam v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Manish Kumar v. Union of India and Another
- Jayant Etc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Venkatesan Balasubramaniyan v. The Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Bangalore
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- M. Ravindran v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
- Saravanan v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
- Bikramjit Singh v. The State of Punjab
- Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
- Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others
- S. Kasi v. State Through the Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station Madurai District
- Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (Nct of Delhi) and Another
- Indu Bai & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
- G H Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana & Ors.
- H Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore (Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.446-447 of 2019) in
- Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr.
- The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal & Anr.
- Pradeep Ram v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State Through the Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi
- National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
- M/S Achal Industries v. State of Karnataka
- Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi and Anr. Etc.
- Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Another v. State of Rajasthan
- Dilawar v. The State of Haryana & Anr.
- Krishanakant Tamrakar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Rambeer Shokeen v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Classic Credit Ltd.
- Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam
- Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rathin Dandapat and Others
- Ravi Prakash Singh @Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar
- Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India Through Its Secretary & Anr.