IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential for the legality of detention, and that the timelines for production before a magistrate must be strictly adhered to.

ORAL JUDGMENT

A. S. Chandurkar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks a declaration that his detention beyond twenty four hours is illegal and hence he is entitled to be released in connection with First Information Report No.806 of 2019 registered with Pimpri Police Station, Pune. The Petitioner has also raised the challenge to the order dated 29/03/2024 passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court, Pune remanding the Petitioner to police custody.

3. Mr. Ashish Bhise, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in connection with Special Prevention of Money Laundering Case No.673 of 2023, he was under judicial custody of the Special Court, Mumbai. The Senior Police Inspector, Pimpri Police Station during the course of investigation in FIR No.806 of 2019 registered under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short, the Act of 1999) sought his custody. In that context the Petitioner was arrested on 27/03/2024 at 5.10 p.m. Under the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) the Petitioner ought to have been produced before the learned Magistrate within twenty four hours of his arrest so as to authorize his detention. The Petitioner was not produced before the learned Magistrate within twenty four hours and he was so produced after twenty four hours. On this count the detention of the Petitioner beyond twenty four hours from 5.10 p.m. on 27/03/2024 was illegal. Referring to the provisions of Section 57 of the Code it was urged that for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions the Petitioner's detention was illegal. Inviting attention to the judgment of learned Single Judge in Ashak Hussain Allah Detha @ Siddique and another vs The Assistant Collector of Customs (P) Bombay and another, 1990 Cri.L.J. 2201 it was submitted that since there was a restraint placed on the liberty of the Petitioner from 5.10 p.m. on 27/03/2024 and he was not produced before the learned Magistrate prior to expiry of twenty four hours his detention was illegal. He was liable to be released forthwith. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner thereafter referred to various provisions of the Act of 1999 to urge that the Petitioner ought to have been immediately produced before the learned Judge of the Special Court and not the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class as offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1999 was also registered. Relying upon the provisions of Section 6(2) and 13 of the Act of 1999 and by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another, (1984) 2 SCC 500 it was urged that since there was reference to offences under the Act of 1999 in FIR No.806 of 2019, the Petitioner's production before the learned Magistrate was of no avail to indicate compliance of the provisions of Section 167 of the Code. It was then submitted that though the Petitioner objected to the issuance of production warrant before the learned Judge of the Special Court on the grounds of violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 57 of the Code, the said aspects were not considered by the learned Judge of the Special Court. Since there had been breach of the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India the Petitioner was entitled to be released forthwith. Reference was also made to the decisions in Manoj vs. State of MP (1999) 3 SCC 715, CBI vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141, Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency, (2022) 13 SCC 542 and V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State (2024) 3 SCC 51 in that regard. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision in Nazir Ahmad and The Ki