9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The matrix of the case, sans unnecessary details, as could be perceived through the material available on record, is that on 26.10.2022, around 11.30 am, a Member of Telangana State Legislative Assembly by name Pilot Rohit Reddy lodged a complaint at Rajendranagar Police Station stating that on 26.9.2022, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 met him and negotiated with him requesting him not to contest as candidate from the party he belongs and to join another party. For doing so, they offered him an amount of Rs. 100 crores, Central Government civil contract works and other high Central Government posts. He was also threatened that in case, he fails to join, criminal cases would be booked and raids would be conducted by E.D/C.B.I. Since the said inducement of bribe was unethical, undemocratic and encouraging corruption, he decided not to entertain such unethical practises. On 26.10.2022, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 again contacted him and informed him that they are coming to his farm house for negotiations. They requested to mobilise some other M.L.As. They also informed that they along with respondent No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , they remained silent. They failed to disclose anything. On enquiry, the aforesaid three M.L.As thoroughly corroborated the version of the defacto complainant in all material aspects. Even then, the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 3 did not disclose anything. They failed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. The Assistant Commissioner of Police seized the pre-arranged electronic spy gadgets from the hall of the farm house and also the two voice recorders from the defacto complainant under the cover of seizure panchanama. On playing the voice recorders before the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 3, they disclosed the conversation of offering of bribe of Rs. 50 crores to each M.L.A. besides other monetary benefits. 6. The two mobile phones which were found in the possession of respondent No. 1/accused No. 1, one mobile phone which was found in the possession of respondent No. 2/accused No. 2 and a mobile phone found in the possession of respondent No. 3-accused No. 3 were seized in the presence of the mediators. Other relevant material including some papers, dairy, laptop, etc., which were found in a car, were also seized. 7. The abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be taken against Magistrates in case remands are accepted without police exhausting the requirement to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and subsequent breach of conditions laid under the said notice by accused. 11. The submission of the supporting counsel-Sri Rama Rao Emmaneni is that investigation ought to have been carried out in coordination with the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau, but, it was indeed carried out by the Police officers of Moinabad Police Station, which is against the procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and thus, registration of case itself is bad in law. 12. During the course of submission, it is also contended by the learned senior counsel that a Criminal Revision Case is not maintainable against an interlocutory order and thus, the present Criminal Revision Case itself is unsustainable. 13. Thus, multiple issues are before this Court to be addressed and decided. The core issue though is as simple as whether rejection of a request to remand the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 3 by the learned Magistrate is justifiable or not, the case is made complicated. However, this Court is duty bound to address all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to, us that the term "interlocutory order" in s.397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights, or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the, right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in s. 397 of the 1973 Code." 17. The subsequent decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court viz., Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI [(2017) 14 SCC 809] and Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1978 SC 47] also followed the same proposition. Pertinently, in the decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in the case between State reptd by Inspector of Police Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate [AIR 2004 SC 2282], the observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner, or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. 7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant, and secondly, a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted. To this limited extent the Magistrate will make judicial scrutiny." 22. A word of caution was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the police officers to follow and for the Magistrates to strictly implement the law laid down. 23. The caution given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the police officers is as under:- "11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction." 24. The caution given by the Hon'ble Apex Court so far as Judicial Magistrates are concerned, is as under:- "11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court." 25. The submission of the learned Advocate General is that by fear of action, more particularly the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole. 29. In the case on hand, the learned Magistrate failed to remand the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 3 to judicial custody solely on the ground that the arrest is illegal for not giving mandatory notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (first cited supra). 30. The impugned order reads as under:- "A-1 to A-3 are produced through PC 5771, 11605, 11613 and 11142 of PS Rajendranagar, R.R. District at 9.15 pm and also Shiva Reddy, ASI, PC 6080, PC 2790 and HG 1760 of PS Moinabad. Verified the particulars of the accused. A-2 stated that police did not allow him to contact his advocate. The alleged offences are under Sections 120-B, 171-B r/w 171-E, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 8 of the PC Act, 1988. Maximum punishment prescribed is upto 7 years for the offence u/s 8 of PC Act. Therefore, as per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it is mandatory to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused persons. But, police violated to follow the guidelines of Hon'ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ensured. Circumstance No. III: Against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence. Circumstance No. IV: Who has been proclaimed as an offender either under Cr.P.C or by order of the State Government. Circumstance No. V: In whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing. Circumstance No. VI: Who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful custody. Circumstance No. VII: Who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union. Circumstance No. VIII: Who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there is requirement to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. 40. Hence, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate clearly erred in rejecting the request for remand of the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the sole ground that the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is not followed. 41. The reasons shown by the investigating agency, seeking for remand of the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 3, in the remand report are as follows:- "(1) The accused persons/A-1 to A-3 did not cooperate in the investigation of the case, due to which the investigation could not completed within (24) hours of their custody. (2) The Police Custody of the accused persons is very much essential to due to the seriousness of the charges against them. (3) In order to prevent accused persons from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tamper with such evidence in any manner. (4) To prevent accused persons from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer. (5) To ensure that the accused persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate patently erred in refusing to remand the respondents. 50. Also, by all the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that non-exercise of power, by ill-reading and misinterpreting both the judgment in Arnesh Kumar's case (first cited supra) and Section 41Cr.P.C., resulted in the impugned order. 51. Thus, this Court ultimately holds that the order that is rendered by the learned Magistrate which is under challenge is unsustainable and therefore, the same requires to be set aside. 52. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order that is rendered by the learned I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, dated 27.10.2022, in Crime No. 455 of 2022 of Moinabad Police Station, is hereby set aside. 53. It is brought to the notice of this Court that despite of the order of this Court, dated 28.10.2022, the respondents failed to furnish their residential particulars to the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. 54. The respondents therefore are directed to surrender before the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, forthwith. In case, the respondents fail to surrender, Police officia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
