(1) AN important question relating to the conflict between the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution which an accused possesses and the larger societal interest in effecting crime detection is involved in this Criminal Original Petition.

(2) CHALLENGE in this Criminal Original Petition is to the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011, declining to authorize the detention of the respondent herein in police custody during the initial period of 15 days of remand.

(3) THE respondent herein is an accused in Crime No.267 of 2011 for offences under Sections 147, 353, 506(i) IPC r/w 3(1) of PPDL Act 1992 and 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. He was formally arrested on 01.10.2011 by the police, and thereafter, produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Karur, with a request for remand on the ground that the investigation could not be completed within 24 hours from the time of arrest. Having considered the said request, the learned Judicial Magistrate authorized the detention of the respondent/accused in judicial custody till 14.10.2011.

(4) WHILE so, the petitioner/State filed Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, seeking police custody of the respondent/accused for three days for the purpose of interrogation. The learned Judicial Magistrate directed the production of the respondent/accused before the Court. When he was so produced, to a specific query made by the learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of the request of the police, the respondent/accused submitted that he had no information to pass on to the Investigating Officer, and so, he was not willing to go to the custody of the police. Accepting the said submission of the respondent/accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 04.10.2011, dismissed the said Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011 filed by the petitioner/State, thereby declining to authorize the detention of the respondent/accused in police custody, as requested. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/State is now before this Court with this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.

(5) IN this Criminal Original Petition, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that interrogation of the accused in the case is a significant part of investigation, and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate was not right in declining to authorize the detention of the respondent/accused in police custody. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that unless the respondent/accused is interrogated, it may not be possible for the Investigating Officer to take the investigation speedily in the right direction, because the respondent/accused has got lot of information’s regarding the offences and that he has got exclusive knowledge of the places, where the sand quarried, by committing the offence, has been concealed. He would further submit that unless custodial interrogation is made, it would be too difficult for the Investigating Officer to recover the stolen sand.

(6) BUT, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would submit that under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the accused has got a freedom of speech and expression which includes the freedom to keep silence. In this case, according to him, the respondent had duly submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate that he wanted to exercise his right to keep silence, and therefore, there will be no purpose served in authorizing the detention of the respondent/accused in police custody. He would further submit that authorizing the detention of the respondent/accused in police custody, when the respondent/accused has expressed his willingness not to make any statement, will only amount to testimonial compulsion offending Artic