Judgment This revision is directed against the order passed by the Second Additional Munsif Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Crl. M.P.No. 336 of 1979 in Crime No. 63 of 1979 of No. 2 Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 63 of 1979 and was arrested by the No. 2 Town Crime Police, Visakhapatnam on the allegation that the accused obtained a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 51 from the State Bank of Hyderabad and chemically altered the said draft and made it to appear for Rs. 85,000, that on 2nd February, 1979 the accused opened a Savings Bank Account at Vijaya Bank, Visakhapatnam with an amount of Rs. 101 and he presented the said forged draft on 3rd February, 1979 for collection through Vijaya Bank. The accused was, therefore, charged with offences under sections 420 , 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code. During the year, 1977 the accused is alleged to have obtained a demand draft for Rs. 21 in the name of B. Manjunatha Babu on 18th July, 1977 at Canara Bank, Beluru Branch of Karnataka State to be drawn on the said Bank at Hubli Branch and the accused in the said case also chemically altered the draft to make it appear that it was issued for Rs. 16,000 and presented the same to Andhra Bank, Machilipatnam after opening an account in the name of M. Munuswamy Naidu and the officials detected the fraud and gave a report. Similarly another draft was obtained for Rs. 16-60 in the name of B. Manjunatha Babu at Canara Bank, Beluru of Karnataka State to be drawn in Hubli Branch. Even in this case the draft was chemically altered to make it appear as Rs. 21,600 and presented the same to Andhra Bank Rajahmundry. On 2nd August, 1977 and 3rd August, 1977, the accused in the said case issued cheques in favour of G. P. Reddy and G. S. Rao and withdrew the entire amount. After coming to know about the fraud and on the report given by the Manager, Canara Bank Rajahmundry a case in Crime No. 178 of 1977 under section 420, Indian Penal Code, was registered at No. 1 Town Police Station Rajahmundry on 17th August, 1977. A similar offence was also committed when the accused obtained a demand draft for Rs. After coming to know about the fraud and on the report given by the Manager, Canara Bank Rajahmundry a case in Crime No. 178 of 1977 under section 420, Indian Penal Code, was registered at No. 1 Town Police Station Rajahmundry on 17th August, 1977. A similar offence was also committed when the accused obtained a demand draft for Rs. 20 in the name of B. Mohan at Canara Bank, Beluru on 4th July, 1977 and an account in the Andhra Bank, Nellore was opened and an amount of Rs. 12,600 was drawn after chemically altering the said draft to appear as Rs, 12,600 and in this case also, cheques were issued in the name of two persons G. Prabhakara Rao and Bhaskara Reddy who withdrew the complete amount and after detecting the fraud and on the report given by the Manager, Canara Bank, Nellore a case Crime No. 277 of 1977 under sections 420 and 468. Indian Penal Code, was registered on 29th October, 1977 at Nellore No. 3 Police Station. All the above cases are under investigation by the Crime Branch, C.I.D., Vijayawada Division. 3. The accused was arrested by No. 2 Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam in Crime No. 63 of 1979 and was remanded to judicial custody. The present petition (Crl.M.P. No. 336 of 1979) was filed by the Inspector of Crime Branch C.I.D., Zone No. 23, Vijayawada with a request that the accused should be handed over to the police for interrogation in connection with the other cases which are under investigation. He also produced C.I.Ds. and various documents in the prior cases before the learned Magistrate to satisfy him about the truth of the allegations in the petition. The petition was opposed by the respondent therein. 4. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments addressed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the Counsel for the accused, passed orders to the effect that the petitioner shall be entrusted to the custody of the respondent for a period of six days and the Respondent is directed to produce the petitioner (accused) before him (the Magistrate) every day to allow him to say and submit any ill-treatment in the hands of the respondent. If the respondent uses any third degree methods or the accused reports any torture to the satisfaction of the Court, the respondent forfeits the right of custody of the petitioner. If the respondent uses any third degree methods or the accused reports any torture to the satisfaction of the Court, the respondent forfeits the right of custody of the petitioner. With the above conditions, the petition was allowed. Hence this revision case by the accused. 5. Sri K. Rajagopal assails the order of the Magistrate and contends that when once the accused was taken to judicial custody, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to hand over the accused to police custody even for the purpose of interrogation in connection with some other cases which are under investigation. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in State v Garasia Nathubha1 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the above cited decision precludes the Magistrate from handing over the accused to the police custody in connection with the investigation of the same case when once he was taken to judicial custody, but it does not preclude the Magistrate from handing over the accused to the police custody if the accused is required in connection with the investigation in some other cases. 7. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the accused was arrested in connection with Crime No. 63 of 1979 and is under judicial custody. It is further clear that the respondent requires the accused for the purpose of interrogation in some other cases which are under investigation of the respondent. The learned Magistrate accepted the request of the respondent and handed over the accused to the respondent recording the reasons and imposing certain conditions which are stated above. 8. The question is whether the Magistrate has no power to hand over the accused to the police custody for enabling the respondent to interrogate the accused in connection with some other cases which are under his investigation and in which the accused was involved, when the accused was already remanded to judicial custody. 9. Section 167. Criminal Procedure Code, is the relevant provision which deals with the remand either to the police custody or to the judicial custody. 9. Section 167. Criminal Procedure Code, is the relevant provision which deals with the remand either to the police custody or to the judicial custody. Section 57 requires the police officer to produce the accused whom he has arrested without warrant before the Magistrate competent to try or commit, within 24 hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court and if the police officer requires the detention of the accused for the purpose of investigation for more than 24 hours, he should take permission from the Magistrate under section 167 , Criminal Procedure Code, and he cannot keep the accused under his custody beyond 24 hours in the absence of a special order of the Magistrate under section 167, Criminal Procedure Code. When the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and when there are grounds to believe that the charge is well founded, it is obligatory upon the investigating officer to produce the accused with a copy of his diary before the Magistrate under section 167, Criminal Procedure Code, for a remand to his custody in order to enable him to continue or complete the investigation. Production before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest is now a fundamental right under Article 22 of the Constitution. If the investigating officer requires the detention of the accused for more than 24 hours for the purpose of investigation and submits the case diary and if the Magistrate upon perusing the case diary and considering such other facts as may be placed, is satisfied that further detention is really necessary for the purpose of investigation, he can direct detention by remand orders from time to time for not more than 15 days each time recording his reasons and at any rate the order of remand cannot be extended for a total period exceeding ninety days as provided under the proviso (a) to section 167 (Amendment Act of 1978). While granting remand from time to time for the periods mentioned in section 167, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind to determine whether the circumstances justify the detention of the accused in the police custody and he should be placed in judicial custody. If detention in police custody is ordered, the Magistrate should record his reasons under sub- section (3). If detention in police custody is ordered, the Magistrate should record his reasons under sub- section (3). Section 167 has given the Magistrate full discretion to order detention “in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit”. Hence the Magistrate is to decide judicially on the materials in the diary whether or not the detention of the accused is necessary. When the power is given to the Magistrate to extend remand from time to time under section 167 , Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate is not precluded by section 167 from handing over the accused to the police for the purpose of investigation of some other cases in which the self-same (accused was involved. But before the Magistrate does so, it is incumbent on him to satisfy himself that a case is made out for handing over the accused into police custody in connection with the investigation of some other cases. If the Magistrate is satisfied that such a case is made out by the investigating officer, then the Magistrate is not precluded by section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code, from handing over the accused to the police custody for the purpose of investigation of some other cases in which the accused was involved. 10. I do not think the decision in State v. Garasia Nathubha1 on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies, lends support to his contention. In that case the accused was arrested by the police on 13th March, 1952 under section 216-A, Indian Penal Code (Penalty for harbouring robbers and dacoits). After remand of five days he was handed over to judicial custody of the Magistrate on 16th March, 1952. The learned Magistrate thereafter released him on bail on 20th March, 1952. While he was at large, the police started investigation into the offences of murder and conspiracy to murder committed at Kharachia. As the accused apprehended that even his life and liberty were in danger if he continued to remain on bail, he surrendered his bail and he was, therefore remanded by the learned Magistrate to judicial custody. Thereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police made an application to the Magistrate requesting him to remand the accused to police custody as he was to be arrested for the offences under sections 302 , 34 and 120 , Indian Penal Code, and under section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act and for investigation into other offences. Thereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police made an application to the Magistrate requesting him to remand the accused to police custody as he was to be arrested for the offences under sections 302 , 34 and 120 , Indian Penal Code, and under section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act and for investigation into other offences. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the accused having already been taken to judicial custody in respect of an offence under section 216-A Indian Penal Code, he had no jurisdiction to remand him again to police custody for another offence. The accused also made allegations of police torture and the learned Magistrate observed that in view of the allegations made by the accused he did not think it proper to remand the accused to police custody. The learned Sessions Judge held that the order was contrary to law and has recommended to the High Court that it should be set aside. The learned Judges took into consideration the provisions of section 167, Criminal Procedure Code and observed: “That section requires that before the Magistrate can make an order of remand, the accused person must have been arrested by the police for the offence which is investigated and forwarded to such Magistrate. In the present case after the accused had surrendered to bail he) was not formally arrested by the police for the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, nor was he forwarded to the learned Magistrate after such arrest. We therefore, hold that the learned Magistrate was not competent to remand the opponent to police custody for investigation because he was already in judicial custody for another offence.” The learned Judges further observed: “We do not agree with him that he had no power to remand the opponent to police custody for investigation because he was already in judicial custody for another offence.” 11. The observations “that we do not agree with him that he had no power to remand the opponent to police custody for investigation because he was already in judicial custody for another offence” are to be noted with significance. The learned Judges deprecated the view taken by the Magistrate that he has no power to remand the accused to police custody for investigation into another offence because he was already in judicial custody for another offence of the same case. The learned Judges deprecated the view taken by the Magistrate that he has no power to remand the accused to police custody for investigation into another offence because he was already in judicial custody for another offence of the same case. According to the learned Judges it is not the correct view. This decision therefore, does not lend any support to the contention that the Magistrate has no power to hand over the accused to police custody for investigation into some other cases in which he was involved merely because he was remanded to judicial custody once. On the other hand, the observations mentioned above lend support to the view that the Magistrate is competent to hand over the accused to police custody for the purpose of investigation of other cases in which he was involved even though he was taken to judicial custody once. The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in State v. Sukhsingh1 took the similar view which I have taken. The learned Judges held that in view of the powers of the Magistrate under section 167(2) they see no prohibition in the Criminal Procedure Code, against the accused being handed over to the police custody in some other case for the purpose of investigation. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to rely upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State v. Chalapathi Rao2 in support of his contention. The learned Judges had to consider the provisions of section 344, Criminal Procedure Code, and hence it has no application to the case on hand. 13. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case on hand is accepted, then the investigation of some other cases in which the accused were involved will not have any progress and all such investigations will remain stand still merely because the accused was in the judicial custody in connection with some other case. That is not the intention of the Legislature as could be seen from the provisions of section 167. It is true that the Magistrate has statutory duty under the provisions of section 167 to protect the interests of the accused as against the torture or third degree methods. That is not the intention of the Legislature as could be seen from the provisions of section 167. It is true that the Magistrate has statutory duty under the provisions of section 167 to protect the interests of the accused as against the torture or third degree methods. But at the same time he has also a duty to see that the investigation of other cases in which the accused was involved should not be stayed and he is, therefore, given the power to hand over the accused to the police custody for investigation in some other case, even though he was under judicial custody and is, therefore, empowered to impose suitable terms. This is exactly what was done in this case by the Magistrate. The Magistrate while handing over the accused to police custody for enabling the respondent investigating officer to interrogate the accused in connection with the investigation of some other cases in which the accused was involved, granted the remand period only for six days and imposed the conditions that the accused should be produced before him every day evening so that the accused can report to the Magistrate if he was tortured or if third degree methods were used by the investigating officer and the conditions imposed by the Magistrate deserve appreciation as they are intended to protect the accused from torture or harassment or the third degree methods used by the police talcing advantage of the custody of the accused. 14. For the aforesaid reasons the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. D.V.P. ----- Criminal revision case dismissed.