Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Yelamanchili Mahesh Babu And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994CRILJ77
ORDER
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners, (A-1 and A-3), under S. 482, Cr.P.C., to quash the order dated 26th June, 1993 in Crl. M.P. No. 1772 of 1993 in Crime No. 4/93 of Dwaraka Tirumala P.S., passed by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru directing that the petitioners herein shall be remanded to the police custody for two days for the purpose of investigation.
2. On the allegation that on 27-1-1993 the accused including the two petitioners herein killed two persons and some more persons also received serious injuries, a case in Crime No. 4 of 1993 was registered by the Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station. It appears that on coming to know of the registration of a crime against them, petitioners, who are accused 1 and 3 respectively surrendered before the Magistrate on 23-4-1993 and they were remanded to judicial custody. Thereupon, the Inspector of Police, filed Crl. M.P. No. 1772/93 in the lower court requesting to commit the petitioners (A-1 and A-3) for police custody for a period of seven days to interrogate them and to know the hide-outs and whereabouts of absconding accused and for recovery of the weapons used in the crime. After giving notice to the petitioners and after hearing both parties and after considering the counter filed by the petitioners, the lower court passed the impugned order remanding the petitioners to police custody for two days. Having been aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the said order.
3. In C.B.I. Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, while considering the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court observed as follows (at page 2779 of AIR) :-
"........ 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 either 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 S. 167(2) and the proviso and can remand him to such custody as mentioned therein during the first period of fifteen days 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 S. 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 S. 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."
Thus, under sub-section (2) of S. 167, Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate can authorise the detention of the accused in such custody, i.e., either police or judicial from time to time but the total period of such detention cannot exceed fifteen days in the whole. In a case where the accused surrendered before the concerned Magistrate even without themselves being available to the police for interrogation, the Magistrate is competent to grant police custody for a period of 15 days in all. The language that is adopted in S. 167(2), Cr.P.C. and the discussion made by the Supreme Court in the above cited case does not come in the way of the Magistrate (sic) to grant police custody for a total period of 15 days with breaks during the period of detention. In the State of Gujarat v. Pramukhlal, 1975 Cri LJ 324, while dealing with a case wherein accused person voluntarily surrenders to judicial custody, the Gujarat High Court observed as follows (at page 326) :-
"It is evident that no accused persons, who has voluntarily surrendered to the judicial custody can be "forwarded" to the concerned Magistrate by the police. Sections 61 and 167 of the Code should be read together and if so done, it become quite evident that S. 167 has no application to the cases wherein the accused person has voluntarily surrendered to the judicial custody and is not "forwarded" by the police to the nearest judicial Magistrate."
A reading of the material available on record prima facie shows that A-1 and A-3 are the main persons. The have directly surrendered before the court, without amenable to the police for interrogation. It is stated on behalf of the State that interrogation of A-1 and A-3 is necessary to know the hide outs and whereabouts of absconding accused and recovery of weapons used in the crime. Under these circumstances, I feel that the Magistrate is perfectly right in directing remand of A-1 and A-3 to police custody for two days subject to the condition that the petitioners should not be ill-treated in the hands of the police. The Magistrate has also recorded cogent reasons justifying the order of remand passed by him and I see no reason to interfere with or quash the same, exercising the inherent power under S. 482, Cr.P.C.
4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
5. Petition dismissed.