( 1 ) THE petitioner filed this criminal Petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter in short referred to as "code", praying for calling for the records in Crl. MR No. 1604/2002 dated 16-5-2002 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Tadepallegudem, as confirmed in Crl. R. P. No. 32 of 2002 on the file of sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari and quash the same.

( 2 ) THE facts in nutshell are that the respondent/accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 1-5-2002 and subsequent thereto the Inspector of Police filed an application in Crl. M. P. No. 1604/ 2002 for Police custody of the respondent/ accused on 13-5-2002 and the Counsel representing the respondent/accused requested time to file counter and the matter was adjourned to 16-5-2002. It was further stated that the learned Magistrate refused to give the respondent/accused to Police custody as the period of fifteen days contemplated under Section 167 (2) of the code had expired by 15-5-2002. Aggrieved by the said order, Crl. R. P. No. 32/2002 on the file of Sessions Judge, Eluru was filed and the said Crl. R. P. was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred the present Criminal Petition under section 482 of the Code to quash the aforesaid orders.

( 3 ) SMT. K. Sesharajyam, the learned public Prosecutor representing the petitioner had taken me through the order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, tadepallegudem in Crl. M. P. No. 1604/2002 in Crime No. 31/2002 of Chebrolu Police station and also the order passed in crl. R. P. No. 32/2002 made by the Court of session, West Godavari, at Eluru. The learned Public Prosecutor also had contended that the Investigating Officer, Inspector of police, Ganapavaram, filed a Memo under section 167 (2) of the Code praying the Court to order Accused No. 1 to police custody for five days for interrogation. The learned public Prosecutor had contended that the learned Sessions Judge had confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate mechanically. The learned Public Prosecutor also had explained the scope, object and ambit of section 167 of the Code and also Section 57 of the Code and had submitted that having requested time for filing counter, the respondent/accused cannot take advantage of the situation and raise a ground that in view of the specification of the period fifteen days under Section 167 (2) of the code, such custody cannot be given. The learned Public Prosecutor also had contended that this approach of the Courts below definitely is totally erroneous and also against to the spirit and object of section 167 of the Code and if such tactics are permitted the prosecuting agencies will definitely suffer.

( 4 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/ accused on the other hand had contended that in view of the bar imposed by section 167 (2) of the Code, there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders made by the Courts below and hence the Criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Mohd. Jahangir v. State of andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) ALT (Crl.) 1445, central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. Anupama Kulkarni, 1992 Crl. LJ 2768, public Prosecutor v. Narayana Reddy, 1995 (2) ALT (Crl.) 697, State v. Dharam Pal, 1982 (1) Crl. LJ. 1103.

( 5 ) HEARD the Counsel and also perused the order impugned in the present Criminal petition.

( 6 ) THE contention that learned Sessions judge, West Godavari had confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate mechanically cannot be accepted for the reason that the learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari at eluru, in Crl. R. P. No. 32/2002 had recorded reasons at paragraph-3 of the order and the said portion of the order reads as hereunder:"the request of the Investigating Officer was rejected by the learned Magistrate mainly on the ground that the respondent was remanded to judicial cust