KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 21-1-94 passed by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, in criminal revision no. 47 of 1994 allowing the application of the investigating Officer for giving the applicants in police custody for one day and setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, dated 13-1-1994 whereby he had refused to grant police remand. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants filed an affidavit in support of this revision staying therein that the applicants surrendered in court on 4-1-94 and they were taken into custody in connection with case crime no. 174 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 I. P. C. relating to police station Narsena, district Bulandshahr. The Investigating Officer moved an application before the Magistrate on 8-1-1994 praying that the applicants may be given in police custody for getting recovery of certain articles made at their pointing out. That prayer of the Investigating Officer was turned down by the Magistrate on 13-1-94. Against that order the State filed criminal revision no. 47 of 1994 before the Sessions Judge, who after examining the material on record allowed the revision and directed the applicant to be given in police custody for one day by means of the order dated 21-1-94. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants contented that the provisions of Sec. 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplate that the police custody of an accused can be granted by the Magistrate on being satisfied on adequate grounds for a period not exceeding fifteen days. After fifteen days remand the accused person can only be detained in Judicial custody and he cannot be given in the police custody after first fifteen days remand. The learned Sessions Judge has granted 20 days time on 21-1-94 for filing revision before the High Court and obtain stay. After fifteen days remand the accused person can only be detained in Judicial custody and he cannot be given in the police custody after first fifteen days remand. The learned Sessions Judge has granted 20 days time on 21-1-94 for filing revision before the High Court and obtain stay. On 9-2-94, the date of presentation of this revision, the period of first 15 days detention had already expired in continuation of which the applicants have been directed to be given in police custody whereas no court has jurisdiction to authorise police custody of an accused after first 15 days remand and in support of this contention he relied upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Central Bureau of Special Investigating Cell v. Anupam K. Kulkarni reported in 1992 All Cri C 512 : (1992 Cri LJ 2768 ). ( 4 ) HEARD Sri T. S. Dabbas, learned counsel for the complainant, and learned Assistant Government Advocate also and perused the relevant papers on record in this connection I also examined the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the code) thoroughly. Sections 157, 209 and 309 of the Code deal with the remand of an accused. The relevant clauses contained in those Sections are quoted below :- sec. 167. . . . . . . . . " (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 days. (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence. Sec. 209 -. . . . . . . . (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during and until the conclusion of, the trial. " sec. 309 -. . . . . . . . (2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it 0000 from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody; provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this Section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time. " ( 5 ) THE above provisions of the statute speak of two types of remand -- first police remand and then judicial remand. The provisions of S. 167 (2) of the Code deal with both types of remand. The police has been given a right to apply before the Magistrate concerned for giving the accused in police custody and on being satisfied on adequate grounds the Magistrate may grant police remand of the accused for a specific period not beyond first fifteen days and later on he can authorise only judicial detention of the accused till 90 to 60 days, as the case may be. Sections 209 and 309 of the Code deal with judicial custody during inquiry and trial. While interpreting custody mentioned in Sub-Section (2) of Section 309 of the Code, this Court in a Full Bench decision in the case of Surjeet Singh v. State of U. P. reported in 1984 All Cri C 69 : (1984 All LJ 375) ruled that the word custody used in Sec. 309 (2) means imprisonment both legal and illegal and observed as follows (378 of All LJ): -"in fact, grave consequences follow if this restriction is placed, on the meaning of the word custody for once the custody of the accused becomes illegal by his, being confined in Jail without a valid order or warrant of remand due to mistake of the Court it would become powerless to remand the accused to custody under Section 309 (2) Cr. P. C. and rectify its error. Even in cases where the accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence and his being set at liberty is likely to lead to tampering of evidence or his absconding, the Court would be bound to set him at liberty which is not contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. If, on the other hand, custody is given its normal meaning of physical imprisonment the Court will have the power to rectify its error and make custody of the accused legal by a valid warrant of remand under Section 309 (2) Cr. P. C. In all criminal cases the accused is either in prison or is on bail after his arrest during the inquiry and trial. The word custody in Section 809 (2) Cr. P. C. in our opinion, therefore, mean physical imprisonment as distinct from being on bail. Even if the accused is in prison after his arrest in a criminal case without an order or warrant of remand by a competent court he is in custody as distinct from being on bail. The word custody therefore embraces both legal imprisonment as well as illegal imprisonment. " ( 6 ) NONE of the counsel for the parties could point out that the meaning of word custody as mentioned in Sec. 309 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as held by this Court in the Full Bench case would not be synonymous to the word custody used in Sec. 167 or 209 Cr. P. C. Thus the word custody used in Sections 167 and 209 of the Code has the same effect as used Section 309 (2 ). ( 7 ) SO far as authorisation of police custody of accused under Sec. 167 (2) is concerned it is legislative mandate that in no way the detention of the accused in police custody can be authorised for any time after expiry of the period of first fifteen days remand. The Magistrate may allow detention other than custody in police till 90/60 days, as the case may be. The Magistrate may allow detention other than custody in police till 90/60 days, as the case may be. In the Supreme Court decision (1992 Cri LJ 2768) (Supra) it is ruled that the Magistrate is competent to authorise detention of any accused in police custody for a specific period on adequate grounds only in the first fifteen days and that detention in police custody or judicial custody or vice versa can be authorised only within first fifteen days. After fifteen days detention the accused cannot be sent to police custody at all except in other cases in which remand of first fifteen days has not yet started. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case approved the rule laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of the State (Delhi Administration) v. Dharam Pal, reported in 1982 Cri LJ 1103 that the words "from time to time" occurring in Section show that several orders can be passed under Section 167 (2) and that the nature of custody can be altered from judicial custody to police custody and vice versa during the first period of 15 days mentioned in Section 167 (2) of the Code and that after fifteen days the accused could only be kept in judicial custody or in any other custody as ordered by the Magistrate but not in the custody of the police. ( 8 ) IN the present case the learned Sessions Judge erred in granting 20 days time for filing revision before the High Court and to obtain stay order whereby he made the right of the prosecution swept for ever and the ends of justice were defeated and frustrated. The prosecuting agency has a right to apply before the Magistrate for police remand. It is solely a discretion of the Magistrate which is to be exercised by him on adequate grounds to grant or refuse to give an accused in the custody of police within first fifteen days. Before granting or refusing police remand, the consideration of any allegation or plea of the accused does not arise inasmuch as after first fifteen days remand the Statute does not authorise grant of police remand of an accused. The prosecution loses its right to make prayer that the accused be given in police custody. Before granting or refusing police remand, the consideration of any allegation or plea of the accused does not arise inasmuch as after first fifteen days remand the Statute does not authorise grant of police remand of an accused. The prosecution loses its right to make prayer that the accused be given in police custody. Grant or refusal of authorisation for detention of an accused in police custody is bilateral proceeding between the prosecuting agency and the Court and accused does not come in picture at all. As soon as the court is satisfied that adequate ground exists for detention of the accused in police custody for a specific period in the first fifteen days imprisonment, he may pass appropriate order for police custody on such terms and conditions as may be specified therein. Even the accused is not required to have notice of the proceedings for the determination of the authorisation of police custody of the accused by any rule of law. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that after expiry of first fifteen days the detention of the applicants in police custody cannot be authorised on any ground whatsoever. Even on the undertaking given by the applicants or their counsel that 20 days time granted to them by the lower court to prefer revision and obtain stay order from the High Court would not be included in the detention of first fifteen days contemplated in Sec. 167 (2) of the Code. It is not expected from a seasoned office, as in the present case, to allow the right of prosecution under Sec. 167 (2) Cr. P. C. frustrated by granting 20 days time to the accused to file revision in the High Court and obtain stay order. The order is patently illegal and against cannons of law. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY the revision is allowed and the order dated 21-1-94 passed by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr is set aside. ( 10 ) AN affidavit has been filed by one Virendra Singh on behalf of the applicants stating that the impugned order dated 21-1-94 was passed by Sri Munendra Kumar Saxena, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, in the capacity of In-charge Sessions Judge. Let a copy of this order be placed on the personal file of the Officer. Petition allowed. .