9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 288 - HC - Money LaunderingRejection of prayer of applicant to grant custody of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for further period of 7 days for the purpose of investigation - Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - The respondent Nos.2 and 3 were in custody of the applicant from 6 pm of 27th January 2021 to 2nd February 2021. According to this Court, five complete days period for confronting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 with the alleged devices is sufficient. During the course of arguments, the learned Special P.P. produced a file of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency containing statements of the respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused allegedly recorded under Section 50 of the said Act. Even if the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are remanded to judicial custody, the Investigating Agency can confront them with the aforesaid documents in jail, after taking necessary permission from the Trial Court, as per the provisions of law. And only for that purpose their custody for interrogation is not necessary - Otherwise also the investigation of the present crime pertains to documents/digital files on electronic devices, which are already seized by the Investigating Agency. The Trial Court after taking into consideration various attending circumstances has rejected the request of the applicant for further custodial interrogation of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 - there is no error or illegality committed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned Order - revision application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Revision Application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 challenging the rejection of custody extension for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Necessity of further custodial interrogation for unearthing complicity in the crime. 3. Consideration of digital data and devices seized during investigation. 4. Adequacy of custodial interrogation duration. 5. Decision on the rejection of custodial interrogation by the Trial Court. Analysis: Issue 1: Revision Application under Section 401 of CrPC The applicant, an Investigating Agency, filed a Revision Application challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the request for an extended custody of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for further interrogation. Issue 2: Necessity of Further Custodial Interrogation The applicant argued that further custodial interrogation of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was crucial to uncover their involvement in the crime, especially regarding money trails and transactions. The Special P.P. emphasized the need for extended custody based on the complexity of the case and the volume of digital data to be examined. Issue 3: Consideration of Seized Digital Data The Investigating Agency seized various digital devices containing substantial data during the investigation. The applicant highlighted the importance of confronting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with this digital evidence to establish their complicity in the alleged offenses. Issue 4: Adequacy of Custodial Interrogation Duration The Court noted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had already undergone five days of custodial interrogation. It was deemed sufficient time for the Investigating Agency to gather relevant information. The Court suggested that further confrontation could take place during judicial custody with proper permissions. Issue 5: Rejection of Custodial Interrogation by Trial Court After evaluating the circumstances and the arguments presented, the Trial Court rejected the request for further custodial interrogation. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that there was no error or illegality in the Trial Court's order. The Court concluded that additional custodial interrogation was unnecessary based on the facts and circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Revision Application, affirming the Trial Court's decision regarding the custody extension for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
|
