Point of Law : Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or revision cannot eschew evidence even if it is evidence secured during illegal arrest or illegal custody of the accused.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 20-05-2021 passed by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bangalore in Special C.C. No. 768 of 2021 and as a consequence seeks a direction for eschewing the statement of the petitioner recorded between 21-05-2021 and 23-05-2021.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

On receipt of certain information on 17-12-2020 at 3.00 p.m. the respondent/Narcotic Control Bureau of Government of India seized 610 gms. of MDMA from the foreign Post Office, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. After the said seizure, again on 18-12-2020 on suspicion arrested accused No. 1, a lady near Sahakarnagar Post Office, Bengaluru. The suspicion leads to the petitioner and the petitioner is also taken into custody on the same day i.e., 18-12-2020. Both accused Nos. 1 and 2 were interrogated, their statements were recorded and on a remand application dated 19-12-2020 police custody was taken, up to 23-12-2020. After interrogation, the petitioner was by an order dated 23-12-2020 remanded to judicial custody.

3. On the investigation continuing, another accused would emerge, Accused No. 3. He is arrested alleging that he is the consumer of the drugs that were supplied from the hands of the petitioner on more than 100 occasions. Accused No. 3 is produced before the Court with a remand application to hand him over to judicial custody. Later, accused No. 3, on the ground that he was a consumer of drugs was released on bail. On the same day i.e., 20-05-2021 the officers of the respondent filed another application before the concerned Court invoking Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking policy custody of the petitioner for three days. The application comes to be allowed by the concerned Court granting police custody of the petitioner for three days and directed them to produce the petitioner back to Court on 24-05-2021. It is, therefore, the Police again got custody of the petitioner between 21-05-2021 and 23-05-2021. During this period the police recorded statements of the petitioner insofar as the link in the chain of events, to the acts of accused No. 3. After the said recording of statement by another application on 24-05-2021 the petitioner was remanded back to judicial custody. During the trial the statements that the petitioner made between 21-05-2021 and 23-05-2021 were sought to be pitted against him. It is immediately thereafter on 27-09-2021 the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court in this petition calling in question the said custody that was taken between 21-05-2021 and 23-05-2021 and statements recorded thereon.

4. Heard Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Narasimhan. S, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned senior counsel would contend with vehemence that the Police custody of the petitioner could not have been granted after close to 6 months of his arrest and him being remanded to judicial custody. The Police can seek custody of an accused in the first fifteen days of his arrest and not thereafter, therefore the statements that are recorded on the second stint of Police custody are illegal, and the same should be eschewed, in their entirety is his emphatic submission. He would seek the prayer in the petition be granted.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that what has been done is only an interrogation with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and accused No. 3, as accused No. 3 has voluntarily admitted that he has consumed drugs supplied by the petitioner at least on 100 occasions. It is, therefore, to link with regard to the custody of funds, the statements are recorded and nothing beyond that. He would contend that whether the statement is available or not, there is enough material against the petitioner to nail him. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consider