9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (in short "Cr.P.C.") that the Magistrate/Special Judge under PMLA can in the first instance authorise the detention of the accused in custody i.e. either police or judicial from time to time but the total period of detention cannot exceed fifteen days in the while. Within this period of fifteen days there can be more than one order changing the nature of such custody either from police to judicial or vice-versa. This position in law settled by the Division Bench of this Court long back in the case of State (Delhi Admn.) v. Dharam Pal, (1982) 21 DLT 50, was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi, v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141, while interpreting Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Raising these questions both the petitioners have impugned the order dated 28th August, 2017 while invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus to set aside the order dated 28th August, 2017 passed by the Court of learned ASJ, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, in relation to ECIR/DLZO/01/2015/AD (VM) dated 12th February, 2015 registered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very person released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter; (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage; (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. Explanation I.-- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail. Explanation II.-- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly for lack of material which might be forthcoming later. In such a case the period of police custody might be shortened by remanding the prisoner to judicial custody while the police is collecting the necessary material for further investigation. There can be many examples of this type dependent on the circumstances of the case." 9. The Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi, v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra) while upholding the view of the Division Bench of this Court held that Section 167(2) is clear in its terms. The Magistrate under this section can authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks fit but it should not exceed fifteen days in the whole. Therefore the custody initially should not exceed fifteen days in the whole. The custody can be police custody or judicial as the Magistrate thinks fit. The words "such custody" and "for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole" are very significant. It is also well-settled now that the period of fifteen days starts running as soon as the accused is produced before the Magistrate. 10. It would be appropriate to refer paras 8 and 13 of the said judgment which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strate alongwith the records. When the arrested accused is so transmitted the Judicial Magistrate, for the remaining period, that is to say excluding one week or the number of days of detention ordered by the Executive Magistrate, may authorise further detention within that period of first fifteen days to such custody either police or judicial. After the expiry of the first period of fifteen days the further remand during the period of investigation - can only be in judicial custody. There cannot be any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first fifteen days even in a case where some more offences either serious or otherwise committed by him in the same transaction come to light at a later stage. But this bar does not apply if the same arrested accused is involved in a different case arising out of a different transaction. Even if he is in judicial custody in connection with the investigation of the earlier - case he can formally be arrested regarding his involvement in the different case and associate him with the investigation of that other case and the Magistrate can act as provided under Section 167(2) and the proviso and can remand him to such custody as mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion would have become illegal beyond fifteen days from the date when they were first produced before the learned Special Judge. He further submits that the impugned order dated 28th August, 2017 remanding the petitioners stands merged with the latest order passed today by which they were sent to judicial custody. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order of the learned ASJ dated 28th August, 2017 is apparently illegal and should be set aside in view of settled position in law in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Dharam Pal (supra) and Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi, v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra). 15. Admittedly, since both the petitioners were produced before the learned Special Judge under PMLA for first time on 22nd August, 2017, the total period of custody/remand could not have been allowed beyond 5th September, 2017 when they would be completing fifteen days in custody. Learned ASJ could not have given the police/ED remand for more than fifteen days after the petitioners were produced on 22nd August, 2017. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Special Judge dated 28th August, 2017, being per s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
