TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een repeatedly summoned on 11 occasions, by the Enforcement Directorate, and, it also reveals that during the afore period of time, 88 hours were spent by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate with the respondent-accused. Moreover, a reading of the impugned order also details, that the accused-respondent, had argued before the Court concerned, while making opposition to the demand of the Public Prosecutor, for his being put to E.D. custody, that in the previous 08 days, only 38 questions were put to him, and, that only 1 hours, per day, became utilized by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate, to interrogate him. The afore echoings borne in the impugned order, coupled with the factum that the learned Court concerned, has also traversed through all the relevant records appertaining to the bank accounts, and, statements of all concerned, rather naturally and tenably led the/remanding Court, to make a valid conclusion, that the claim for police remand, as made by the Special Public Prosecutor concerned, was unmeritworthy. Petition dismissed. - CRM-M No. 49307 of 2021 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 14-12-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR Present: Mr. S.V.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days. Consequently, he argues that with the impugned order becoming pronounced on 18.11.2021, therefore, the total statutorily contemplated spell of police custody, inasmuch as its duration lasting, only upto a period of 15 days, and, rather to become reckonable from 11.11.2021, hence expired on 25.11.2021. He also argues that after making of the impugned order on 18.11.2021, the accused-respondent is in judicial custody. Consequently, there cannot be any valid claim, by the petitioner herein, for his being transposed from judicial to police custody. In making the afore submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused has made dependence, upon a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, pronounced in case titled as Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi versus Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 Supreme Court Cases 141. He makes a vehement contention before this Court, that relevant paragraphs 13 and 14, as are carried therein, paragraphs whereof are extracted hereinafter, impose a blanket injunction, upon the Court concerned, against the transposition of the accused concerned, from judicial, to police custody, imperatively upon elapse of 15 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and thereafter in accordance with the proviso as discussed above. If the investigation is not completed within the period of ninety days or sixty days then the accused has to be released on bail as provided under the proviso to Section 167(2). The period of ninety days or sixty days has to be computed from the date of detention as per the orders of the Magistrate and not from the date of arrest by the police. Consequently the first period of fifteen days mentioned in Section 167(2) has to be computed from the date of such detention and after the expiry of the period of first fifteen days it should be only judicial custody. 14. We may, however, in the end clarify that the position of law stated above applies to Section 167 as it stands in the Code. If there are any State amendments enlarging the periods of detention, different consideration may arise on the basis of the language employed in those amendments. 4. In other words, he has emphasized upon the existence in the hereabove extracted paragraphs, the sentence occurring therein, as becomes hereafter extracted. After the expiry of the first period of fifteen days the further remand during the period of investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riety of the impugned order concerned, as appertains extantly hence to the order declining to remand to police custody rather of the accused concerned, obviously the date whereons, the impugned order is made, does assume conspicuous relevance. He submits that when on the afore date, the period of 15 days of police custody, has not elapsed, thereupon it becomes the recknoable date for the relevant purposes, and, also if this Court interferes with the impugned order, its order of interference would relate back to the date of making of the impugned order, and, obviously therefrom the statutory period of 15 days remand to police custody, of the accused, would remain, yet alive. Therefore, he contends that there would be no impermissible transposition of the accused-respondent hence from judicial to police custody, nor also, the prohibition, as cast in case (supra), would be attracted against the petitioner herein. 7. The nutshell or the substratum, of the rival contentions addressed before this Court, by the learned counsels appearing for the contesting litigants, is that whether the afore singular expression, as existing, in judgment (supra), rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the first instance considered whether there was material to make out a case of kidnapping or abduction against Mr. Kulkarni, and, observed that even the abducted persons, namely, the four diamond merchants do not point an accusing finger against Mr. Kulkarni, and, that at any rate Mr. Kulkarni himself has been interrogated in jail for almost seven days by the CBI, and, nothing has been divulged by him. Therefore, it is not desirable to confine him to jail, and, in that view of the matter, he granted him bail. Since the High Court did not decide the question whether or not after the expiry of the initial period of 15 days, a person can still be remanded to police custody by the Magistrate concerned, before whom he was produced. Therefore, the afore order became challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. The stark fact which emerges from the hereabove unfoldments, and, from the facts carried therein, is that since at the initial stage of production, of one Mr. Kulkarni, before the Court concerned on 05.10.1991, the afore hence on the afore date, rather on the request of the CBI, became remanded to judicial custody upto 11.10.1991. Therefore, it is evident from the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, it hence brings to the fore consequential legal sequels, that the Public Prosecutor concerned, is subsequently inventing or creating grounds, for seeking the police custody of the accused concerned, and, also that if his request is allowed, rather the legal prudence, as contemplated, within the ambit of Section 167 Cr.P.C., would become breached, by the remanding Court concerned. 13. Now keeping in mind the afore factual matrix, as carried in the verdict (supra), it can be with completest confidence, rather concluded, that the above singular expression, as occurring therein, as becomes relied, upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused, if becomes blended with, the factual matrix carried therein, thereupons obviously it does not make any inflexible dicta, upon the remanding Court concerned, to even when the apposite facts, are distinct from the facts therein, i.e. in the verdict (supra), yet it be rigorously applied in every distinct thereto case. Moreover, also even if 15 days elapse, from the date of declining of police remand, and, the accused being put to judicial custody, yet the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, can yet become availed to test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble Apex Court. Moreover, the claim for remand, as put, is to be in tandem with the verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and, also hence established to be well founded, and, befitting. Therefore, this Court proceeds to allude to the application, as became preferred by the petitioner herein, before the Court concerned, wherethrough it claimed the police custody, of the respondent-accused rather for seven days. The foundation of the claim, is set-forth, in relevant portion of the apposite application, portion whereof becomes extracted hereafter. A Determining the role of various other persons and aides who facilitated the offence of money laundering in the instant case. B. That further custodial interrogation of accused is required to quantity the proceeds of crime pertaining to the bank transactions and to further ascertain all the entities/accounts linked to accused which have been used in the commission of offences of money laundering in the instant case. C. That further custodial interrogation of accused is required as he is still to be confronted with the voluminous evidence on record, in order to facilitate an effective investigation of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icials of the Enforcement Directorate, to interrogate him. The afore echoings borne in the impugned order, coupled with the factum that the learned Court concerned, has also traversed through all the relevant records appertaining to the bank accounts, and, statements of all concerned, rather naturally and tenably led the/remanding Court, to make a valid conclusion, that the claim for police remand, as made by the Special Public Prosecutor concerned, was unmeritworthy. 17. During the course of arguments, being addressed before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been able to produce before this Court any material suggestive, that any of the afore echoings, carried in the impugned order, are false. The consequence of the afore, is that the learned Court concerned, had tenably declined the claim of the Special Public Prosecutor, to put the accused-respondent to E.D. custody, as prima facie it would give a tool to the E.D., to unnecessarily harass the respondent-accused. Moreso despite abundant relevant opportunities being made available to the officials of the Enforcement Directorate, yet theirs failing to utilize all the time, as became accorded to them for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
