Remand under Section 344 does not require a charge-sheet or prior cognizance, but it must be judicially reasoned.

Section 167 limits detention during investigation to fifteen days in the whole, but Section 344 separately authorises remand by warrant in inquiry or trial without requiring a prior charge-sheet or prior cognizance. The Delhi HC stated that no such limitation can be read into Section 344, and that the Explanation contemplates a stage where further evidence may still be obtained through remand. The Magistrate must, however, exercise the power judicially, record reasons, and avoid mechanical remand. The operative effect is that remand under Section 344 may be ordered during ongoing investigation, subject to statutory safeguards.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a charge-sheet under Section 173, a Magistrate can remand an accused to custody beyond the initial period of 15 days and whether taking cognizance is a prerequisite to an order of remand under Section 344.

Analysis: Section 167 permits detention by a Magistrate for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole during investigation. Section 344, which deals with postponement and adjournment in inquiry or trial and authorises remand by warrant, contains no express condition that a charge-sheet must first be filed or that cognizance must already have been taken. The Court held that it is impermissible to read such a limitation into the provision. The Explanation to Section 344 contemplates a stage where further evidence may still be obtained by remand, and the Magistrate must exercise the power judicially, record reasons, and ensure that remand is not granted mechanically.

Conclusion: An order of remand under Section 344 is not dependent on prior submission of a charge-sheet or prior cognizance, and the remand power can be exercised during ongoing investigation, subject to the statutory safeguards.

---