JUDGMENT - (1) These are applications by one Yashwant Bapuji Mokashi by one of which he prays that one Malati Sitaram Mokashi be released from unlawful custody and by the other for action in contempt against two C. I. D. Officers, Sub-Inspector S. A. Shinde (Respondent 2) and Police Inspector Shravan Kiro Ahir (Respondent 3).

(2) The facts leading to these applications are briefly these: On 25-6-1967 there was theft of nearly Rs. 84,000 in the Thana Branch of the Dena Bank. In connection with this theft the petitioners brother Sitaram Bapuji Mokashi, who was the Accountant of the Bank, and the watchman of that bank were arrested on 27-6-1967. The offence was registered at the Thana Police Station. On 30-6-1967 the investigation was transferred to the C. I. D. Department, Bombay, and Shinde, Police-Sub-Inspector C. I. D. was deputed for investigation. In the course of investigation on 2-7-1967 Shinde arrested Malati Sitaram Mokashi, the wife of Sitaram Bapuji Mokashi and the sister-in-law of the present petitioner. Malati was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thana, on 3-7-1967 and she was remanded into police custody till 10-7-1967. On 10-7-1967 when Malati was produced before the learned Magistrate, a bail application which had been filed earlier was heard by the learned Magistrate and rejected. On rejection, Malati was remanded to police custody upto 15-7-1967. As 15-7-1967 was a Saturday, the learned Magistrate ordered that she be produced before him at 8 a.m.

(3) On 15-7-1967 Malati was not produced before the learned Magistrate as required. The Investigating Officer Shinde who was present informed the Court that during the course of the investigation he had gone to Sultanpur in Uttar Pradesh and had only returned on the 13th, and in the meantime Malati and some of the other accused were being interrogated by higher officers of the Department, and just at that moment he did not exactly know the whereabouts of Malati. He also assured the Magistrate that the police officers, who had taken charge of the accused and gone out-side Thana for investigation, would produce the accused before the nearest Magistrate in the locality. The learned Magistrate apparently was not satisfied with the explanation given by the Investigating Officer and he therefore, passed the following order:-

"Accused No. 3 (Malati) and No. 4, who are directed to be produced before me today at 8 a.m. they are not produced. P. S .I. Shinde says that the custody of these accused is with higher officers. He learns that the accused are out of Thana. The bail application is set down for orders on 18-7-1967. P. S. I. Shinde or whoever is in charge of investigation is directed to produce accused Nos. 3 and 4 before me at 11 a.m." Malati was accordingly to be produced before the learned Magistrate on 18th July 1967.

(4) In the meantime, however, the remand period granted by the learned Magistrate having expired on 15-7-1967, respondent No. 3, Ahir, Police Inspector, C. I. D. produced Malati for further remand before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Greater Bombay, and obtained a further remand into police custody till 28-7-1967. Shinde informed the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thana, about this on 16-7-1967.

(5) But already there was the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate for the production of Malati before him on 18-7-1967, and normally, therefore, she ought to have been produced before him. On the contrary, the Police Prosecutor made an application to the Judicial Magistrate for vacating the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 15-7-1967. In this application he stated as follows:-

"The C. Ds. of the case are separable submitted by I. O. (Investigating Officer) for Your Honours persual to give an idea of the vital stage of investigation. Today production of the accused at this juncture is likely to affect the success-in-investigation which is already complicated on account of modus operandi of the offence.............

The va

Click Here to Read the rest of this document