Back
Karnataka High Court
STATE BY STAMP INVESTIGATION TEAM - Appellant
Versus
ABDUL KAREEM TELGI KAREEM LALA - Respondent
Decided On : 08-04-03
CRI.PETN. : 1419 of 2003
Held: The learned Magistrate ordered for police custody of this respondent, the same could not be put into effect as the respondent herein was brought to Bangalore only in the month of January, 2003, i.e., 24.1.2003. Immediately on 24.1.2003, another application was filed. On both the occasions, learned Magistrate as per Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice has notified the said requisitions of the Investigating Officer to the respondent and on hearing the objection, has disposed of the matter. The respondent is represented by a Counsel before this Court as well. Though on 6.2.2003 an order came to be passed, they could file this petition on 10.4.2002 on account of administrative procedures that had to be followed for sanction by the Government to prefer the petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. before this Court. Meanwhile, the charge-sheet is filed in this case but further investigation is being carried on with permission. (Para 13)
It is alleged against this respondent that when he was placed in Central Prison, Bangalore pertaining to a crime, had committed the crime in question inside the Central Prison by using mobile phones, etc. alongwith his associates and amassed wealth amounting to more than 200 crores of rupees. When he is lodged in the Central Prison this came to the notice of the Investigating Officer and he suo motu registered present crime number. (Para 14)
From the discussions and keeping in mind the principles laid down in the above decisions, it becomes clear that the limit for police custody prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code continues to be a period not exceeding 15 days in the whole for investigation would definitely apply to single case and is not attracted when the accused is involved in series of different cases. It may be a fact the investigation is against the same accused for the same nature of offences, but they are all different cases. It is alleged in the present case when the respondent is arrested in one case where he is in custody already, some more similar offences are committed, but not in the same case, but at different point of time at different places. (Para 15)
Even if cognizance of the offence is taken, the police have every power or right to investigate further. The learned Counsel for respondent fairly admits that from the beginning till this day, the respondent is in custody in Crime No. 545/2000 (Section 430/2002) only. Therefore, respondent was never taken to custody in this matter. Under these circumstances, especially having regard to the fact the order dated 4-11-2002 could never be put into effect for the rea-sons, mentioned above, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 6-2-2003. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: (Para 16)
Respondent herein Abdul Kareem Telgi @ Kareem Lala, is ordered to be given to police custody i.e. Sri M.K. Ganpathy, the Asst. Commissioner of Police and Investigating Officer, CCB, Bangalore, for a period of 10 days commencing from 6-8-2003 to 15-8-2003. (Para 17)
Result: Petition allowed.
( 1 ) HEARD the learned Special S. P. P. for the petitioner-State and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the records.
( 2 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed seeking grant of police custody of the respondent herein in crime No. 1100/02 (C. C. No. 37/2003) for interrogation and recovery of incriminating materials in the said crime.
( 3 ) EARLIER to the registration of this crime, crime No. 545/00 on the file of the Upparpet Police Station, came to be registered against the respondent herein. In the said case, the respondent was housed in Central Prison. As per the body warrant at the instance of the state the respondent/accused was produced in Crime No. 1100/02 on 25. 10. 2002. The order sheet pertaining to the said case would reveal he was produced under body warrant and then he was sent to judicial custody. On the very same day, an application came to be filed by the investigating Officer seeking police custody of the respondent herein. The learned Counsel for the respondent filed his power for respondent herein/accused No. 1 and sought time to file his objections on the application for police custody of the respondent/accused. '
( 4 ) IN S. C. No. 430/2002 (Crime No. 545/00), an order came to be passed by the learned Sessions Judge permitting this respondent to be taken to Mumbai for his production on 28. 10. 2002 before the addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, III Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, ac per the production order issued in C. C. No. 200/p/2002. Meanwhile, the respondent filed his objections on the application seeking police custody by the State. On 4. 11. 2002, when the respondent was still at Mumbai in relation to a different case at mumbai, an order came to be passed and the relevant portion reads as under:"a1 Abdul Kareem Lal is ordered to be given to the Police custody of M. K. Ganapathy, Asst. Commissioner of Police, City crime Branch, Bangalore for a period of 10 days commencing from the day on which A1 would be brought back to Central Jail, bangalore from Bombay, on or before 08. 11. 2002 (since J. C period for 15 days comes to an end on 8. 11. 2002) since it is reported that Bombay police on the basis of the body warrant issued by the Sessions Court, Bombay, have taken away A1 to Bombay from Central Jail, Bangalore".
( 5 ) AS on the date of passing of this order, the learned Magistrate was aware that the respondent was neither in police custody nor in judicial custody so far as crime No. 1100/02 or crime no. 545/00 (Section 430/02 ). However, the fact remains, the respondent herein was never brought to Bangalore as mentioned in the orders of the learned Magistrate dated. 4. 11. 02 before 8. 11. 02. On the other hand, the respondent was brought to Bangalore from mumbai only in the month of January 2003. On 24. 1. 2003, another application came to be filed Under Section 167 Cr. P. C by the investigating officer, requesting for remand of the respondent to police custody from 24. 1. 03. An order came to be passed on 6. 2. 03 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. The learned Judge observed that the Investigating Officer did not bring to the notice of the Court either on 7. 11. 02 or on 8. 11. 02 that respondent was never brought back from Mumbai to Bangalore on or before 8. 11. 02 and therefore, the order could not be enforced. The other reason for rejecting such prayer is that beyond the first 15 days of remand to judicial custody, the accused cannot be remanded to police custody.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present petition is filed challenging the orders dated 6. 12. 2003.
( 7 ) SRI B. R. Nanjundaiah Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State submitted that the lower court was wrong in not noticing the memo filed by the Investigating officer on 8. 11. 02 explaining the facts and circumstances under which they could not be put into action regarding police custody of the respondent as per the orders dated. 4. 11. 02. certified copy of the said memo is fil
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
