Judgment :- 1. The principal question that is required to be answered in these appeals is when and under what circumstances a Court can invoke the provisions of S.73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Code' for short). The question arises in this way. 2. On March 12,1993 a series of bomb explosions took place in and around the city of Bombay which resulted in the death of 257 persons, injuries to 713 persons and damage to properties worth Rs. 27 crores (approximately). Over the explosions 27 criminal cases were registered and on completion of investigation a composite charge-sheet was forwarded to the Designated Court, Greater Bombay on November 4,1993 against 198 accused persons, showing 45 of them absconders for commission of various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA for short), Arms Act, 1959, Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and other Acts. On that charge-sheet the Designated Court took cognizance and the case registered thereon was numbered as BBC (Bomb Blast Case) No.1 of 1993. 3. A few days thereafter - on November 11, 1993 to be precise - the Government of India, with the consent of the Government of Maharashtra, issued a notification entrusting further investigation in the above cases to Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) under the provisions of S.5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Pursuant thereto CBI registered a case being No. R.C.1 (5)/93/S.T.F. Bombay on November 19, 1993 and took up further investigation with permission of the Designated Court. 4. In course of such investigation CBI apprehended Mohd. Salim Mira Moiuddin Shaikh @ Salim Kutta, one of the absconders mentioned in the chargesheet, on July 24,1995. He made a confessional statement before Sri. S.K. Saikia, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID, Ahmedabad, which was recorded by him on August 18 and 19, 1995 under S.15 of TADA. In that confession he disclosed that the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') had taken active part in the criminal conspiracy which was the subject matter of BBC No.1 of 1993. In that confession he disclosed that the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') had taken active part in the criminal conspiracy which was the subject matter of BBC No.1 of 1993. Thereafter on May 22,1996, the CBI moved an application before the Designated Court (Misc, Application No. 201 of 1996) wherein it stated that following the disclosure of the involvement of the respondents in the offences in question, raids had been conducted at their known hideouts to arrest them but none could be apprehended in spite of best efforts as they are deliberately evading their arrest to escape the clutches of law and, accordingly, prayed for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against them to initiate further proceedings in the matter to apprehend them and/or to take further action to declare them as proclaimed offenders. Two other applications (Misc. Application Nos. 210 and 211 of 1996) were thereafter moved on June 3,1996 for publication of , written proclamations under S.8(3) (a) of TADA as also for issuance of open dated non-bailable warrants of arrest so that 'Red Corner Notices' might be issued against them. According to CBI such notices are required to be got issued by INTERPOL to seek police assistance in a foreign country to locate and apprehend fugitives. 5. When the three applications Came up for hearing a learned Advocate who was appearing for some of the persons arraigned in BBC No.1 of 1993 submitted before the Designated Court that they were entitled to copies of the applications and a right of hearing on their merits, in the matter. The Designated Court accepted his submissions; and on receipt of the copies of the application the learned Advocate filed a rejoinder thereto. After hearing the parties the Designated Court, by its order dated August 1, 1996, rejected the applications. The above order is under challenge in these appeals preferred at the instance of CBI. 6. From the impugned order we find that before the Designated Court it was submitted on behalf of CBI that since it was making further investigation into the offences in respect of which chargesheet had earlier been submitted and since the presence of the respondents, who are absconding, was absolutely necessary for ascertainment of their roles, if any, in commission of the offences, it was felt necessary to file the applications. It was further submitted that only after warrants and/or proclamations as prayed for were issued, that it (CBI) would be able to take further coercive measures to compel them to appear before the Investigating Agency for the purpose of intended further investigation. According to CBI under S.73 of the Code and S.8(3)(a) of TADA the Designated Court was fully empowered to issue warrants of arrest and proclamations. In rejecting the above contentions the Designated Court held that after cognizance was taken in respect of an offence process could be issued to the persons accused thereof only to compel them to face the trial but no such process could be issued by the Court in aid of investigation under S.73 of the Code. According to the Designated Court, though under the Code further investigation was not barred there was no provision therein which entitled the Investigating Agency to seek for and obtain aid from the Court for the same. Since the above findings were recorded by the Designated Court relying solely upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohammed Yasin Mansuri v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) Crl.Q.1854, it will be necessary to refer to the same in some details. In that case, investigation into an offence of murder and other related offences was taken up initially by the Officer-in-Charge of Byculla Police Station and thereafter by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of CID. During the investigation the Designated Court, on the prayer of the DCP, issued non-bailable warrants for apprehension of some of the accused involved in those offences. Thereafter a charge-sheet came to be filed against several accused, some of whom were before the Court and some others including Mansuri (the petitioner before the High Court) were shown as absconding. On the very day the chargesheet was filed Designated Court took cognizance of the offences mentioned therein. Few months later Mansuri came to be arrested by the CBI. Delhi in connection with some other offence. On receipt of that information the DCP filed an application before the Designated Court for warrants of arrest and production of Mansuri before it. The prayer was allowed and in due course Mansuri was brought to Bombay and handed over to DCP. On the following day, Mansuri was produced before the Designated Court; and on such production the prosecution prayed for remand of Mansuri to police custody. The prayer was allowed and in due course Mansuri was brought to Bombay and handed over to DCP. On the following day, Mansuri was produced before the Designated Court; and on such production the prosecution prayed for remand of Mansuri to police custody. The prayer was allowed and the Designated Court remanded him to police custody, but kept the order abeyance for a few days to enable Mansuri to challenge the same in a superior court. Assailing the above order of the Designated Court, Mansuri moved the Bombay High Court. Before the High Court it was submitted on behalf of Mansuri that once investigation into an offence was complete and a chargesheet was filed, the provisions of S.309 of the Code came into operation and sub-s. (2) of the said Section left no discretion to a Court. The only course open to the Court then was to remand the accused to judicial custody. It was further submitted that whereas S.167 conferred a discretion upon the Court of authorising detention of an accused either in judicial custody or police custody such a discretion was completely absent in S.309 of the Code. Accordingly, it was submitted that the order passed by the Designated Court granting Mansuri to Police Custody was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. In' accepting the above contention and quashing the impugned order the High Court firstly observed: "It would, therefore, follow that the warrants which were issued by the Designated Court for production of the petitioner could not have been in aid of investigation but could only have been by way of a process issued under S.204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issue of warrants after cognizance of an offence is taken would be a process contemplated under S.204 (1)(b) of the Code, ie. it would be a process to face trial. Indeed, we do not find any provision contained in the Code for issue of warrants of arrest and custody of accused for the purpose of, or in aid of, investigation. The process contemplated is a process to face trial." (emphasis supplied) The High Court further observed: "We are conscious that the view we are taking is likely, in certain cases such as the present one, to hamper investigation. However, this is not a matter for us. The process contemplated is a process to face trial." (emphasis supplied) The High Court further observed: "We are conscious that the view we are taking is likely, in certain cases such as the present one, to hamper investigation. However, this is not a matter for us. We have construed the provisions of the Code and have found that no power is conferred for providing for police custody after cognizance of an offence is taken." (emphasis supplied) 7. In view of the provisions of Chap.12 and those of S.309(2) of the Code we are constrained to say that the above quoted observations have been made too sweepingly. Chap.12 relates to information to the police and their powers to investigate. Under S.154 thereof whenever an officer-in-charge of a police station receives an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence he is required to reduce the same in writing and enter the substance thereof in a prescribed book. S.156 invests the Officer-in¬charge of a police station with the power to investigate into cognizable offences without the order of a Magistrate and S.157 lays down the procedure for such investigation. In respect of an information given to the Commission of a non-cognizable offence, the Officer-in-charge is required under S.155(1) to enter the substance thereof in the book so prescribed but he has no power to investigate into the same without an order of the competent Magistrate. Armed with such an order the Officer-in-charge can however exercise all the powers of investigation he has in respect of a cognizable offence except that he cannot arrest without a warrant. The manner in which a person arrested during investigation has to be dealt with by the investigating agency, and by the magistrate on his production before him, is provided in S.167 of the Code. The said Section contemplates that when the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours fixed by S.57 and there are grounds to believe that the charge levelled against the person arrested is well founded it is obligatory on the part of the Investigation Officer to produce the accused before the nearest Magistrate. On such production the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused initially for a term not exceeding 15 days either in police custody, or in judicial custody. On such production the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused initially for a term not exceeding 15 days either in police custody, or in judicial custody. On expiry I of the said period of 15 days the Magistrate may also authorise his further detention I otherwise than in Police Custody if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exists for such detention. However, the total period of detention during investigation cannot be more than 90 days or 60 days, depending upon the nature of offences mentioned in the said Section. Under sub-s. (1) of S.173, the officer-in-charge is to complete the Investigation without unnecessary delay and as soon as it is completed to forward, under - sub-s. (2) thereof, to the competent Magistrate a report in the form prescribed setting forth the names of the parties, the nature of the information and the names of the persons who appears to be acquitted with the circumstances of the case. Sub-s. (8) entitles the Officer-in-Charge to make further investigation and it reads as under: "Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after the report under sub-s. (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provision of sub-ss. (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-s.(2)." 8. (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-s.(2)." 8. In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, (AIR 1955 SC 196), this Court dealt with the definition of 'investigation' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'old Code'), which is same under the new Code and after analysing the provisions of Chap.14 of that Code (which corresponds to Chap.12 of the Code) stated: "Thus under the Code investigation consists generally of the following steps: (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places or seizure or things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial and (5) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of the charge-sheet under S.173". 9. Though under the old Code there was no express provision-like sub-s. (8)of S.173 of the Code - Statutorily empowering the police to further investigate into an offence in respect of which a charge-sheet has already been filed and cognizance taken under S.190(1)(b), such a power was recognised by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (AIR 1979 SC 1791). In exemplifying the situations which may prevail upon the police to take up further investigation and the procedure the Court may have to follow on receipt of the supplemental report of such investigation, this Court observed that: "It is easy to visualise a case where fresh material may come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused. When it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of ablibi and submit a report to the Magistrate? When it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of ablibi and submit a report to the Magistrate? After all the investigating agency has greater resources at its command than a private individual. Similarly, where the involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the Magistrate upon the involvement of the other persons in either case, it is for the Magistrate to decide upon his future course of action depending upon the stage at which the case is before him. If he has already taken cognizance of the offence, but has not proceeded with the enquiry of trial, he may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and deal with all the accused, in a single enquiry or trial. If the case of which he has previously taken cognizance has already proceeded to some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence disclosed against the newly involved accused and proceed with the case as a separate case. What action a Magistrate is to take in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such situations is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate." 10. In keeping with the provisions of S.173(8) and the above quoted observations, it has now to be seen whether S.309(2) of the Code stands in the way of a Court, which has taken cognizance of an offence, to authorise the detention of a person, who is subsequently brought before it by the police under arrest during further investigation, in police custody in exercise of its power under S.167 of the Code. S.309 relates to the power of the court to postpone the commencement of or adjournment of any injury or trial and sub-s. (2) thereof reads as follows: "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 injury or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same in such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remanded the accused if in custody. Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this Section for a term exceeding 15 days at a time." xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the remand and the custody referred to in the first proviso to the above sub-section are different from detention in custody under S.167. While remand under the former relates to a stage after cognizance and can only be to judicial custody, detention under the latter relates to the stage of investigation and can initially be either in police custody or judicial custody. Since however, even after cognizance is taken of an offence the police has a power to investigate into it further, which can be exercised only in accordance with Chap.12, we see no reason whatsoever why the provisions of S.167 thereof would not apply to a person who comes to be later arrested by the police in course of such investigation. If S.309(2) is to be interpreted - as has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in Mansuri (supra) - to mean that after the Court takes cognizance of an offence it cannot exercise its power of detention in police custody under S.167 of the Code, the Investigating Agency would be deprived of an opportunity to interrogate a person arrested during further investigation, even if it can on production of sufficient materials, convince the Court that his detention in its (police) custody was essential for that purpose. We are therefore, of the opinion that the words 'accused if in custody' appearing in S.309(2) refer and relate to an accused who was before the Court when cognizance was taken or when enquiry or trial was being held in respect of him and not to an accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further investigation. We are therefore, of the opinion that the words 'accused if in custody' appearing in S.309(2) refer and relate to an accused who was before the Court when cognizance was taken or when enquiry or trial was being held in respect of him and not to an accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further investigation. So far as the accused in the first category is concerned he can be remanded to judicial custody only in view of S.309(2), but he who comes under the second category will be governed by S.167 so long as further investigation continues. That necessarily means that in respect of the latter the Court which had taken cognizance of the offence may exercise its power to detain him in police custody, subject to the fulfilment of the requirements and the limitation of S.167. 12. The moot question that now requires to be answered is whether a Court can issue a warrant to apprehend a person during investigation for his production before police in aid of the Investigating Agency. While Mr. Ashok Desai, the learned Attorney General who appeared on behalf of CBI, submitted that S.73 coupled with S.167 of the Code bestowed upon the Court such power, Mr. Kapil Sibal, who appeared as amicus curiae (the respondents did not appear inspite of publication of notice in newspaper) submitted that Court had no such power. To appreciate the steps of reasoning of the learned counsel for their respective stands it will be necessary to refer to the relevant provision of the Code and TADA relating to issuance of processes. 13. Chap.6 of the Code which is captioned as "processes to compel appearance" consists of four parts; Part.A relates to Summons; Part.B to warrant of arrest; Part.C to proclamation and attachment and Part.D to other rules regarding processes. Part.B with which we are primarily concerned in these appeals, has in its fold S.70 to 81. S.70 speaks of the form in which the warrant to arrest a person is to be issued by the Court and of its durational validity. S.71 empowers the Court issuing the warrant to direct the officer who is to execute the warrant, to release that person on terms and conditions as provided therein. S.70 speaks of the form in which the warrant to arrest a person is to be issued by the Court and of its durational validity. S.71 empowers the Court issuing the warrant to direct the officer who is to execute the warrant, to release that person on terms and conditions as provided therein. S.72 provides that a warrant shall ordinarily be directed to one or more police officers but if its immediate execution is necessary and no police officer is immediately available it may be directed to any other person for execution. S.73, which is required to be interpreted in these appeals, reads as under: 73(1). The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. (2) Such person shall acknowledge in writing the receipt of the warrant, and shall execute it if the person for whose arrest it was issued, is in, or enters on, any land or other property under his charge". 14. S.76 requires the police officer or other person, who executes the warrant to bring the person arrested before the Court (unless he is released in terms of S.7(1), within 24 hours. 15. S.82, appearing in Part.C empowers the Court to issue proclamation; and so far as it is relevant for our present purpose, reads as under: "82(1). If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. (emphasis supplied) xxx xxxx xxx (2) xxxx xxx xxx (3) xxxx xxx xxx 16. After issuing a proclamation in terms of the above provisions, the Court may also order attachment of the property of the proclaimed person under S.83; and even deprive him of his such property if he does not appear within the time prescribed under S.85. 17. (emphasis supplied) xxx xxxx xxx (2) xxxx xxx xxx (3) xxxx xxx xxx 16. After issuing a proclamation in terms of the above provisions, the Court may also order attachment of the property of the proclaimed person under S.83; and even deprive him of his such property if he does not appear within the time prescribed under S.85. 17. Chap.16 relates to commencement of proceedings before Magistrate and S.204 appearing therein enables a Magistrate, who takes cognizance of an offence, to issue process (summons/warrant) against the accused if he finds sufficient grounds to proceed against him. 18. Coming now to the relevant provisions of TADA we may first refer to sub-s. (3) of S.8 relating to proclamation for and attachment of the property of a person accused of an offence punishable under TADA. Clause (a) of the above sub-section lays down that if upon a report in writing made by a police officer or an office referred to in sub-s; (1) of S.7, any Designated Court has reason to believe that every person, who has committed on offence punishable under the Act or any rule made thereunder has absconded or is concealing himself so that he may not be apprehended, such Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in S.82 of the Code, publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than fifteen days but not more than 30 days from the date of publication of such proclamation; and sub-s. (3)(b) thereof entitles the Court issuing the proclamation to order attachment of property belonging to the proclaimed offender and then proceed in accordance with S.83 to 85 of the Code. For all intents and purposes, therefore, sub-s. 8(3) of TADA seeks to achieve the same object as Part.C of Chap.6 does namely to compel appearance of the accused. The other Section to which reference need be made is S.20 which makes the provisions of the Code applicable to the proceedings under TADA, subject to the modification envisaged therein. 19. The contention of Mr. The other Section to which reference need be made is S.20 which makes the provisions of the Code applicable to the proceedings under TADA, subject to the modification envisaged therein. 19. The contention of Mr. Desai was that though in exercise of its power under S.41 of the Code a police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant arrest a person who is concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a responsible complaint has been made, or a credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned, under the Code the police has no power of its own to compel his appearance if he evades the arrest. It is in that context, Mr. Desai argued, that the Court has been given the power under S.73 to issue warrant of arrest for apprehension of such a person; and, thereafter, if need be, to issue proclamation and pass order for attachment of his properties. In joining issue, Mr. Sibal urged that the scheme of the Code is that the police has complete control of the investigation and is not aided by any judicial authority. Once the investigation culminates in the police report under S.173(2) that the Court steps in by taking cognizance thereupon and issuing summons or warrant under S.204 against the person arraigned. According to Mr. Sibal, in the Scheme of the Code it is unthinkable that the police, while investigating under Chap.12 is entitled to seek the help of a Magistrate for the purposes of issuance of a warrant of arrest in aid of investigation. As regards S.7 3, Mr. Sibal's argument was that in the scheme of Part.B of Chap.6 that section only lays down a procedure to enable a Court to execute a warrant already issued under S.204 but does not confer and right to issue a warrant, much less during investigation. 20. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that under the old Code the corresponding provision was S.78; and while recommending its amendment the Law Commission in its 41st report stated, inter alia: 6.8. 20. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that under the old Code the corresponding provision was S.78; and while recommending its amendment the Law Commission in its 41st report stated, inter alia: 6.8. S.78 at present confers a power on the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate to issue a special type of "warrant to a land holder, farmer or manager of land within the district of sub-division for the arrest of an escaped convict, proclaimed offender or person who has been accused of a non-bailable offence and who has eluded pursuit". Although the power is infrequently exercised, there appears to be no objection to conferring it on all Magistrates of the first class and all " (emphasis supplied) 21. Apart from the above observations of the Law Commission, from a bare perusal of the Section (quoted earlier) it is manifest that it confers a power upon the class of Magistrates mentioned therein to issue warrant for arrest of three classes of person, namely, i) escaped convict, ii) a proclaimed offender and iii) a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. If the contention of Mr. Sibal that S.204 of the Code is the sole repository of the Magistrate's power to issue warrant and the various Sections of part'B' of Chap.7 including S.73 only lay down the mode and manner of execution of such warrant a Magistrate referred to under S.73 could not -and would not - have been empowered to issue warrant of arrest for "apprehension of an escaped convict, for such a person can not come within the purview of S.204 as it relates to the initiation of the proceeding and not to a stage after a person has been convicted on conclusion thereof. 22. That S.73 confers a power upon a Magistrate to issue a warrant and that it can be exercised by him during investigation also, can be best understood with reference to S.155 of the Code. As already noticed under this Section a police officer can investigate into a non-cognizable case with the order of a Magistrate and may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation which he may exercise in a cognizable case, except that he cannot arrest without warrant. As already noticed under this Section a police officer can investigate into a non-cognizable case with the order of a Magistrate and may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation which he may exercise in a cognizable case, except that he cannot arrest without warrant. If with the order of a magistrate the police starts investigation into a non-cognizable and non-bailable offence, (like S.466 or 467 (Part.1) of the Indian Penal Code) and if during investigation the Investigating Officer intends to arrest the person accused of the offence he has to seek for and obtain a warrant of arrest from the Magistrate. If the accused evade the arrest, the only course left open to the investigating Officer to ensure his presence would be to ask the Magistrate to invoke his powers under S.73 and thereafter those relating to proclamation and attachment In such an eventuality, the Magistrate can legitimately exercise his powers under S.73, for the person to be apprehended is 'accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.' 23. Another factor which clearly indicates that S.73 of the Code gives a power to the Magistrate to issue warrant of arrest and that too during investigation is evident from the provisions of Part'C' of Chap.6 of the Code, which we have earlier adverted to. Needless to say the provisions of proclamation and attachment as envisaged therein is to compel the appearance of a person who is evading arrest. Now, the power of issuing a proclamation under S.82 (quoted earlier can be exercised by a Court only in respect of a person'against whom a warrant has been issued by it'. In other words, unless the Court issues a warrant the provisions of S.82, and the other Sections that follow in that part, cannot be invoked in a situation where inspite of its best efforts the police cannot arrest a person under S.41. Resultantly, if it has to take the coercive measures for the apprehension of such a person it has to approach the Court to issue warrant of arrest under S.73; and if need be to invoke the provisions of Part'C' of Chap.6 [S.8(3) in case the person is accused of an offence under TADA]. 24. Resultantly, if it has to take the coercive measures for the apprehension of such a person it has to approach the Court to issue warrant of arrest under S.73; and if need be to invoke the provisions of Part'C' of Chap.6 [S.8(3) in case the person is accused of an offence under TADA]. 24. Lastly, we may refer to S.90, which appears in Part'D' of Chap.6 of the Code and expressly states that the provisions contained in the Chapter relating to a summon and warrant, and their issue, service and execution shall, so far as may be, apply to every summons and every warrants of arrest issued under the Code. Therefore, when a Court issues a warrant of arrest, say under S.155 of the Code, any steps that it may have to subsequently take relating to that warrant of arrest can only be under Chap.6. 25. Now that we have found that S.73 of the Code is of general application and that in course of the investigation a Court can issue a warrant in exercise of power thereunder to apprehend, interalia, a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest, we need answer the related question as to whether such issuance of warrant can be for his production before the police in aid of investigation. It cannot be gain said that a Magistrate plays, not infrequently, a role during investigation, in that on the prayer of the Investigating Agency he holds a test identification parade, records the confession of an accused or the statement of a witness, or takes or witnesses the taking of specimen handwritings etc. However, in performing such or similar functions the Magistrate does not exercise judicial discretion like while dealing with an accused of a non-bailable offence who is produced before him pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under S.73. On such production, the Court may either release him on bail under S.439 or authorise his detention in custody (either police or judicial) under S.167 of the Code. Whether the Magistrate, on being moved by the Investigating Agency, will entertain its prayer for police custody will be at his sole discretion which has to be judicially exercised in accordance with S.167(3) of the Code. Whether the Magistrate, on being moved by the Investigating Agency, will entertain its prayer for police custody will be at his sole discretion which has to be judicially exercised in accordance with S.167(3) of the Code. Since warrant is and can be issued for appearance before the Court only and not before the police and since authorisation for detention in police custody is neither to be given as a matter of course nor on the mere asking of the police, but only after exercise of judicial discretion based on materials placed before him, Mr. Desai was not absolutely right in his submission that warrant of arrest under S.73 of the Code could be issued by the Courts solely for the production of the accused before the police in aid of investigation. 26. On the conclusions as above, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order and direct the Designated Court to dispose of the three miscellaneous applications filed by CBI in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein before. 27. Before parting with this judgment we place on record our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Desai and Mr. Sibal in deciding the issues involved in these appeals.