2018 (6) TMI 1685 - HC - Indian Laws

Short Investigating Machinery - offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w. Section 420, 465, 467, 468 471 of the Indian Penal Code - validity of remanding the Petitioner to Judicial Custody - whether the Petitioner's detention or rather continued detention beyond the statutory period by the police machinery is illegal or the Petitioner has not been released from the custody despite the mandate of the law being clear? HELD THAT - This is a case where the Petitioner was indeed produced before the Court of Special Judge and he was remanded to custody vide order of that Court passed by the Special Judge. The order of the Special Judge records as to how there is a charge-sheet filed and which we have reproduced above. The record indicates as to how the learned Judge indeed took it on record and then remanded the Petitioner to the custody. The order of the Special Judge therefore cannot be scrutinized by us and we are not concerned with this aspect of the matter. The Petitioner is free to adopt appropriate proceedings to question this action of the investigating machinery. The filing of the charge-sheet by the prosecution as claimed and taking that on the record by the Court below thus is being harped upon, to challenge the detention. The ground as raised in the Petition and as elaborated in the Affidavit-in-Rejoinder with the aid of Annexure 'A' thereto is thus impugning the detention pursuant to an action and direction of the Court. However, police machinery has nowhere been accused of violating the constitutional mandate and has not been further accused of detaining the Petitioner in custody contrary to the said mandate. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing and setting aside the order dated 5 January 2018 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for the Petitioner’s release.
3. Compliance with the prescribed time limit for filing the charge-sheet under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Validity of the remand orders extending the Petitioner’s judicial custody beyond 90 days.
5. Alleged procedural irregularities in filing the charge-sheet and its acceptance by the court.
6. Distinction between illegal detention by police and judicial custody pursuant to a court order.

Detailed Analysis:

Quashing the Order Dated 5 January 2018:
The Petitioner sought to quash the order dated 5 January 2018, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which remanded him to judicial custody. The Petitioner argued that this order violated the mandate of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it extended his custody beyond the statutory period of 90 days without a valid charge-sheet being filed.

Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus:
The Petitioner sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming his detention was illegal and unconstitutional. He argued that the charge-sheet was not filed within the prescribed 90-day period, making his continued detention unlawful. The Petitioner contended that the police failed to comply with the legal requirements for filing the charge-sheet, thus violating his rights under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Compliance with the Prescribed Time Limit for Filing the Charge-Sheet:
The Petitioner argued that the charge-sheet was not filed within the 90-day period stipulated by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He claimed that the charge-sheet was only presented to the court on 19 January 2018, beyond the statutory limit, and that he was not informed of the addition of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Validity of the Remand Orders Extending Judicial Custody:
The Petitioner contended that the remand orders extending his judicial custody beyond 90 days were illegal and unconstitutional. He argued that the order dated 5 January 2018 remanding him to custody till 19 January 2018 was without jurisdiction and violated the statutory limit under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Alleged Procedural Irregularities in Filing the Charge-Sheet:
The Petitioner claimed that the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Machinery was incomplete and did not comply with the legal requirements. He argued that merely dropping documents in the court registry did not constitute a valid filing of the charge-sheet. The Petitioner relied on the judgment in Matchumari China Venkatareddy and Ors. v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that an incomplete charge-sheet does not meet the requirements of the law.

Distinction Between Illegal Detention by Police and Judicial Custody Pursuant to a Court Order:
The court emphasized the distinction between illegal detention by the police and judicial custody pursuant to a court order. It held that a Writ of Habeas Corpus is applicable only in cases of illegal detention by the police, not when the detention is pursuant to a judicial order. The court referred to the judgment in Pragya Singh Thakur v/s. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that Article 22(2) of the Constitution does not operate against judicial orders.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the Petitioner’s detention was pursuant to a judicial order and did not constitute illegal detention by the police. The court found that the charge-sheet was filed within the prescribed time limit and that the remand orders were valid. The Petitioner was advised to seek appropriate legal remedies to challenge the procedural aspects of the charge-sheet filing and the remand orders. The court discharged the rule and concluded that the Petitioner’s continued detention was lawful.