CBI, Special Investigation Cell-I v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) - Detention of Accused u/s 167(2) CrPC

• JUDGEMENT SUMMARY: Central Bureau Of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I v. Anupam J. Kulkarni
• DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 8^th May, 1992
• JUDGES: Justice K Jayachandra Reddy & Justice AM Ahmadi
• PARTIES: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CELL-I (Petitioner)v.ANUPAM J. KULKARNI (Respondent)

SUBJECT

Anupam J Kulkarni Case, where the matter of imprisonment and detention in containment has been dealt with, has been held that the magistrate under S.167 (2) can authorize the detention of the accused in prison as he sees fit, but should not exceed 15 days in totality.

OVERVIEW & FACTS

• The case involving the abduction of four diamond merchants located in Bombay and one Shri Kulkarni was reported at the Tughlak Road Police Station in New Delhi on 16.9.91 and the inquiry was assigned to C.B.I.
• During the investigation, it was revealed that not only the four diamond merchants but also Shri Kulkarni, who is the respondent before us and one Babulal driver, were abducted between the 14th and the 15th September, 1991, from two hotels in Delhi.
• Kulkarni was detained on 4.10.91 and presented before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 5.10.91 responsible for judicial detention before 11.10.91
• On the grounds of certain existing content, Shri Kulkarni was detained on 4.10.91 and placed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi on 5.10.91. At the behest of the C.B.I., Shri Kulkarni was under judicial detention until 11.10.91. A test recognition demonstration was organized on 10.10.91, but Shri Kulkarni declined to comply and his unwillingness was reported by the Munsif Magistrate concerned.
• On 11.10.91 an application was filed by the investigator requesting police custody of Shri Kulkarni, who was permitted to do so. As he was taken on the way Shri Kulkarni purported to be indisposed, he was taken to the Hospital on the same night, where he stayed admitted on the premise of sickness until 21.10.91, and then he was transferred to the Cardiac Out-patient Department of G.B. Pant Hospital. Upto 29.10.91 Shri Kulkarni was again remanded to judicial custody by the Magistrate and thereafter was sent to Jail.
• Considering that the police have not been able to send him to police detention all these days, the investigation officer has again appealed to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's court for police custody of Shri Kulkarni. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Dharam Pal and others, 1982 Crl. Oh, L.J. 1103 ignoring the warrant of the police. Questioning the same a revision was filed before the High Court of Delhi.
• The abducted persons namely the four diamond merchants do not point an accusing finger against Shri Kulkarni and that at any rate Shri Kulkarni himself has been interrogated in jail for almost seven days by the C.B.I. and nothing has been divulged by him, therefore it is not desirable to confine him in jail and in that view of the matter he granted him bail. The High Court, however, 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 before whom he was produced. The said order is challenged in these appeals.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Section 167 CrPC- The whole purpose of Section 167, Cr. P.C. is that the accused should not be detained for more than 24 hours and subject to 15 days’ police remand and it can further be extended upto 90/60 days, as the case may be.
• Section 57 CrPC- Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty- four hours. No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate' s Court.
• Section 344 CrPC- Section 344 CrPC deals with summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence. As per the provisions, the concerned court has to first form an opinion that the witness appearing in the proceeding before it has knowingly or willfully given or fabricated false evidence.
• Section 309 CrPC- Section 309 Cr.P.C. is a section dealing with custody during trial. In addition, after filing of charge sheet, Section 209 Cr.P.C. can also be used for remanding accused to custody by the Magistrate (wherever it is relevant) who commits the case to the Sessions court if the case is exclusively triable by a Sessions court.

ISSUES

• whether a person arrested and produced before the nearest Magistrate as required under Section 167(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can still be remanded to police custody after the expiry of the initial period of 15 days?
• Bar for interrogating the accused who is in judicial custody during the periods of 90 days or 60 days.
• Whether a person arrested in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him during an occurrence can be detained again in police custody in respect of another offence committed by him in the same case and which fact comes to light after the expiry of the period of the first 15 days of his arrest?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENTS

The judicial remand, also referred to as a remand, refers to a process whereby the higher court returns appeals back to the lower court for further proceedings. It also applies to the case in which the perpetrator is taken back to custody for further interrogation. In this particular case, the following judgement was provided:

• Wherever an individual is arrested under Section 57 Cr. The PC should be brought before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours as stated therein. Such a magistrate may or may not be qualified to try the case. If the judicial magistrate is not eligible, the police officer can transmit the detained offender to the closest executive magistrate to whom the judicial powers have been delegated.
• The Judicial Magistrate can, in the first place, permit the imprisonment of the defendant in such custody, i.e. either police or judicial from time to time, although the actual duration of detention may not reach 15 days in total. Under this 15-day period, more than one order can alter the form of such detention, either from officer to correctional, or vice versa.
• If the criminal is taken before the Executive Magistrate, he shall be empowered to cause him to be held in such imprisonment for a week, either by the police or by the courts, in the same way, i.e. by one or more orders, except after one week, he shall be forwarded to the nearest Judicial Magistrate along with the documents.
• After the expiry of the primary time of fifteen days the further remand during the time of examination - must be in legal authority. There can not be any confinement in the police authority after the expiry of initial fifteen days even for a situation where some more offenses eitherserious or in any case submitted by him in a similar exchange become known at a later stage. In any case, this bar doesn't matter if a similar captured denounced is engaged with an alternate case emerging out of an alternate exchange.
• After the expiry of the primary time of fifteen days the further remand during the time of examination - must be in legal authority. There can not be any confinement in the police authority after the expiry of initial fifteen days even for a situation where some more offenses either serious or in any case submitted by him in a similar exchange become known at a later stage. In any case, this bar doesn't matter if a similar captured denounced is engaged with an alternate case emerging out of an alternate exchange.
• Regardless of whether he is in legal guardianship regarding the examination of the prior - case he can officially be captured with respect to his inclusion in the distinctive case and partner him with the examination of that other case and the Magistrate can go about as given under Section 167(2) and the stipulation and can remand him to such authority as referenced in that during the main time of fifteen days and from there on as per the stipulation as examined previously,
• If the investigation is not concluded under ninety days or sixty days, the accused shall be released on bail, as provided for in Section 167. (2). The term of ninety days or sixty days must be measured from the day of the incarceration, in compliance with the orders of the Judge, and not from the date of the police arrest.
• Correspondingly, the first 15-day duration alluded to in Article 167(2) must be determined from the time of such imprisonment and, at the completion of the first 15-day period, only judicial custody must be given.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of whether an individual is in legal guardianship regarding the examination of the prior case, he can officially be captured with respect to his inclusion in the distinctive case and partner him with the examination of that other case and the Magistrate can go about as given under Section 167(2) and the stipulation and can remand him to such authority as referenced in that during the main time of fifteen days and from there on as per the stipulation as examined previously. The decision itself was well conceived, and proper dependency was imposed on rulings, decisions of the lower courts, legislative experience and numerous other content.