JUDGMENT B.L.YADAV, J. 1. BY this revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) order dated 2-5-1987 passed by Sessions Judge Meerut is sought to be quashed. 2. FACTS leading to the present revision are that the applicant was arrested by the police of the Police Station Delhi Gate Meerut in Crime No. 190 of 1987 under Sections 147/148/326/302/307 and 427 IPC and was produced for remand before the Judicial Magistrate Sri N. A. Zaidi, on 29-4-1987 who after perusal of case diary and other papers neither granted remand nor refused the same rather directed the accused to be produced before the appropriate court on 30-4-1987. When the applicant was produced on 30-4-87 before the Magistrate concerned and prayer was made on behalf of the prosecution for remand, by making a reference to the order dated 29-4-87 the applicant was ordered to be released. Thereafter prayer was made by the police that the applicant be kept 'Baparda'. On 2-5-87 the applicant was produced for remand but the same was refused by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that it has already been refused by Judicial Magistrate having similar jurisdiction. Against that order revision was filed which was still pending but as an interim order Sessions Judge Meerut granted remand to the applicant for a fortnight. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. Sri A. B. L. Gour, learned counsel for the applicant strenuously urged that refusal of remand by 3 Magistrates on 29-4-87, 30-4-87 and 2-5-87 was perfectly justified and the order of learned Sessions Judge granting remand for a fortnight was beyond the provisions of Section 167 of the Code. It was next urged that the case diary and papers were not produced and in case they were produced, no case of remand was made out and unless the Magistrate was prima facie satisfied on perusal of case diary and other papers, no remand can be granted. Reliance was placed on Regnikant Mehta v. State of Orissa, 1975 CrLJ 83 , In re Burla Jairami Reddi, AIR 1957 AP 561 , Beer Bhadra Pratap v. D. M. Azamgarh, AIR 1959 All. 384 and Rajaram Chaudhary v. State, AIR 1951 All. 460 . 3. Reliance was placed on Regnikant Mehta v. State of Orissa, 1975 CrLJ 83 , In re Burla Jairami Reddi, AIR 1957 AP 561 , Beer Bhadra Pratap v. D. M. Azamgarh, AIR 1959 All. 384 and Rajaram Chaudhary v. State, AIR 1951 All. 460 . 3. SRI Harihar Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the State on the other hand urged that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly granted remand on the perusal of the case diary and other papers produced before him as similar papers were produced before the Magistrate also but without giving sufficient reasons they refused to grant remand. The impugned order is correct in view of the provisions of Section 167 of the Code, read as a whole. 4. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, there are 2 points for consideration. First is whether under the provisions of Section 167 the order of Magistrate refusing remand were justified particularly when the case diary and other materials were also produced before them. Second point is as to what is ambit of scrutiny by Magistrate under Section 167 for passing an order of remand. These points can be answered on the interpretation of Section 167 of the Code. The relevant statutory provision of Section 167 is quoted below:- "167. Procedure when Investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours:-(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 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 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 (thirty three) for the purposes of that (Chapter)." 5. IN order to make correct interpretation of Section 167 of the Code it may be read along with Secs. 41, 56, 57 and Sec. 172 of the Code. Sec. 41 provides that no Police Officer may, without any order of the Magistrate or without any warrant, arrest any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom any complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. Section 56 provides that a person arrested has to be taken before the Magistrate. Section 57 provides that no Police Officer shall keep any person under custody for a longer period than 24 hours. Section 172 provides procedure how a Police Officer has to make entries in the police diary for day to day progress of investigation. 6. Section 56 provides that a person arrested has to be taken before the Magistrate. Section 57 provides that no Police Officer shall keep any person under custody for a longer period than 24 hours. Section 172 provides procedure how a Police Officer has to make entries in the police diary for day to day progress of investigation. 6. ONE of the elementary principles of interpretation of Statutes is that it must be purposive keeping in mind the object and purpose behind it. The interpretation is the best which is textual matching the contextual. At the same time the object behind the particular provision must be ascertained. Different provisions must be harmonised by reading as a whole, i. e. section by section, clause by clause. What was the mischief sought to be removed, what was the remedy sought to be advanced by particular enactment has also to be kept in view. See Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless Co, (1987) 1 SCC 424 = AIR 1987 SC 1023 ; Moideen Kutty Haji v. Kunhikoya, AIR 1987 Kerala 184 FB para 16, Heydon's case, 3 Co. Rep. 7a. Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law (1813 Edition) Volume 1, page 78, tells us as follows:- "The first and most rational method to interpret the will of the Legislator is by exploring his intention at the time when the law was made, by signs, the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, or the spirit and the reasons of the law." 7. THESE statements and observations are quite relevant in interpreting different sub sections of Sec. 167, particularly by making reference to the natural signs i. e. words used or language employed and with above principles section 167 has to be interpreted with reference to its text, context, object behind it the mischief that it seeks to suppress and advance the remedy. 8. UNDER Old Section 167 Cr PC 1898 the maximum period of detention in custody was fifteen days but as very often it was difficult to complete the investigation within short period hence some changes were made under Section 167 (new Code of 1973). 8. UNDER Old Section 167 Cr PC 1898 the maximum period of detention in custody was fifteen days but as very often it was difficult to complete the investigation within short period hence some changes were made under Section 167 (new Code of 1973). Section 167 enacts that when any person is arrested and detained by the police in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and there are grounds for believing that the information is well founded, along with the copy of the entries in the Police Diary person shall be sent to the nearest Judicial Magistrate or if he is not available to the Executive Magistrate (vide 167 (2) (A)) who shall authorise the detention of the accused for such custody (i. e. police custody) for a term not exceeding 15 days. But if the order of remand is to be passed by the Executive Magistrate he shall authorise the detention in police custody for a period of seven days only. The word ' such 'used before the word' custody ' under Section 167 (2) is adjective according to Grammer. To be exact word ' such ' is Demonstrative Adjective, and this word points out the earlier word ' custody ' under sub-section (1) of Sec. 167 which is obviously a police custody. The word ' such ' itself connotes before mentioned. It is clear that the Diary shall be forwarded to the Executive Magistrate in view of sub-Sec. (2-A) of Sec. 167 but there is nothing to indicate that if the entries of the case diary do not suggest prima facie that any case has been made out, the Executive Magistrate would not direct the detention in such custody i. e. police custody for 7 days. 9. IT is to be highlighted that there is distinction between the language employed under Section 167 (1) and 167 (2) and Proviso (a) to sub-Section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 does not indicate that the Magistrate would peruse the entries in the case diary and in case prima facie case appears to have been made out, the accused would be granted remand for a period of fifteen days in the police custody. Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 does not indicate that the Magistrate would peruse the entries in the case diary and in case prima facie case appears to have been made out, the accused would be granted remand for a period of fifteen days in the police custody. First fifteen days detention is to be granted by the Magistrate for police custody vide sub-section (2) of Section 167, whereas detention period is to exceed first fifteen days, it must be not for police custody but in the custody other than police custody i. e. judicial custody or some similar custody. But for this custody, other than police custody, the Magistrate must be satisfied from perusal of the entries in the diary. In other words, for keeping the accused in police custody under Section 167 (2) for a period of 7 days, there is no legal requirement for perusal of entries in diary or there being satisfaction that adequate grounds exist. This appears to be because of the fact that even under Section 41 of the Code any person can be arrested without any order from Magistrate or without any warrant, even just on a reasonable suspicion. When that is the stage for reasonable suspicion for arresting a person and making some entries in the case diary, there is no justification that even for first 7 days of remand there must be some positive evidence collected by police. 10. WHEREAS in case the detention of an accused beyond a period of 7 days other than the police custody becomes necessary in that case the Proviso to Section 167 would be applicable. In other words a proviso is not the construction itself, but it is usually an aid to the constitution. Scope of proviso is affected by scope of main clause. Proviso in fact is an exception created to the main provision. Proviso has to be read with a reference to what preceded it. It is better to quote an observation from Thompson v. Dibdin, (1912) AC 533 at 544: ' A proviso must prima facie be read to consture in relation to the principal matter to which it is a proviso. It is not separate or independent. Words are dependent on the principal enacting words to which they are tacked as a proviso. It is better to quote an observation from Thompson v. Dibdin, (1912) AC 533 at 544: ' A proviso must prima facie be read to consture in relation to the principal matter to which it is a proviso. It is not separate or independent. Words are dependent on the principal enacting words to which they are tacked as a proviso. ' In this view of the matter the proviso to Section 167 has to be read with reference to Section 167 (1) and (2) of the Code. Reading these provisions together only inference possible is that the Magistrate may authorise the detention of an accused otherwise than in custody of police i. e. in respect of which the provisions have been made under Section 167 (1) and (2) beyond the period of 15 days, if the Magistrate is satisfied that adequate ground exists for doing so. In this view of the matter it is clear that the detention in the police custody can be made by Magistrate for a period of 15 days only. 11. IN the instant case Magistrate refused remand and passed order dated 2-5-87 insisting much upon the case diary stating that remand was refused by his predecessors in the office. No doubt entries in the diary are forwarded to the Magistrate for his perusal but reading all sub-sections and Proviso of Section 167 of the Code, I am of the view that for passing an order of detention for a period of 15 days under police custody at the initial stage, the perusal of the case diary is not necessary. It is also not necessary that the Magistrate must be satisfied by perusal of case diary for passing an order of detention for first fifteen days that there exists sufficient ground for passing such order. The Legislature appears to have made this provision for cogent and practical reasons inasmuch as arrest can be made on suspicion, hence there cannot be positive evidence collected by that time within a period of 2 weeks. This is the reason why for the authorisation of detention in police custody for first fifteen days there need not appear sufficient ground or prima facie case from perusal of diary. This is the reason why for the authorisation of detention in police custody for first fifteen days there need not appear sufficient ground or prima facie case from perusal of diary. After rejection of the prayer for remand by the 3 Magistrates, the revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge and he passed impugned order allowing the remand for a fortnight till disposal of the revision application. Under the circumstances of the case I am of the view that in view of the provisions of Section 167 (2) Proviso (a) of the Code, read with sub-section (2-A) the order of learned Sessions Judge granting remand for a period of fortnight was perfectly justified. 12. LEARNED counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant has got a fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, hence he cannot be detained in custody for more than 24 hours but Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except by procedure established by law and Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is procedure established by law and in accordance with that procedure a person can be deprived of his personal liberty. Adverting to the cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, Regnikant Mehta v. State of Orissa, 1975 Cr LJ 83 (supra), was a case interpreting Section 167 (2) (Proviso) indicating that the order of remand was not a mechanical act rather the Magistrate has to exercise discretion judicially. In the instant case police sought remand immediately after the arrest within 24 hours. This case of Regnikant Mehta (supra) is of no assistance to the present applicants. 13. IN re Burla Jairami Reddi, AIR 1957 AP 561 (supra) perusal of the case diary by the Magistrate under the Old Code was involved but in view of the language of new Code under Section 167 even though the case diary is sent for perusal by Magistrate but while granting remand for police custody (and certainly not for any other custody or in judicial custody) perusal of the diary has not been made condition precedent. This case is also besides the point involved in the present case. 14. BEER Bhadra Pratap v. D. M. Azamgarh, AIR 1959 All. This case is also besides the point involved in the present case. 14. BEER Bhadra Pratap v. D. M. Azamgarh, AIR 1959 All. 384 (supra) was a case where provisions of Section 167 of the Code were interpreted keeping in view provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. I have indicated earlier that detention of a person if sought for a period more than 24 hours, that can be done only with the authority of the Magistrate and that authority has been provided under Section 167 of the Code and in the instant case Magistrate was not justified in refusing to pass an order of remand when he was actually called upon to pass an order for a period of first 2 weeks immediately after the arrest of the accused. Hence this case also does not improve the position and is not very material. In Rajaram Chaudhary v. State (supra), 1951 All. 460 after perusal of case diary Magistrate refused to remand but the superior Magistrate directed him to do so in that context it was held that superior Magistrate has no authority to do so. This case is of no assistance to the applicant. 15. IN view of the discussions made hereinbefore I don't find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Impugned order dated 2-5-87 passed by learned Sessions Judge granting remand for a period of fortnight is perfectly correct. Revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.