The main legal point established in the judgment is that police custody can only be ordered during the first period of fifteen days after arrest and production before the Magistrate, and not after the expiry of the said period.

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crl. M.P. No. 712/2013 in Cr. No. 08/2013 dated 5-2-2013 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Karaikkal and set aside the same and consequently allow the petition filed under Section 167(3) of Cr. P.C. to take custody of the accused for five days.

2. The FIR came to be registered on 11-1-2013 on the file of the Karaikal Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 324 r/w 149, IPC in Crime No. 8 of 2013 against six unknown persons. On 22-1-2013, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 who are the respondents herein surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pabanasam and were remanded to Judicial custody by the said Magistrate. Afterwards they were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, namely Judicial Magistrate No. II, Karaikal on 2-2-2013. The petitioner, Inspector of Police filed an application before the said Court with a prayer to hand over the accused for police custody for five days.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Karaikal, after hearing, passed an order rejecting the request of the petitioner by observing that within the 1st 15 days, police custody has to be taken and the petition was filed at the verge of 14th day is dismissed as not maintainable.

4. Mr. T. Murugesane, learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) appearing for the petitioner would contend that inasmuch as the first remand made by the Pabanasam Judicial Magistrate under Section 57 of Cr. P.C. need not be taken into account for the purpose but only the date of remand by the jurisdictional Magistrate namely Judicial Magistrate No. II, Karaikal has to be considered and the period of 15 days has to be computed from 2-2-2013 and if so, the request of the petitioner for grant of judicial custody of the accused is within the time frame and that their would be no impediment for the Court to pass orders allowing police custody for five days.

5. The Honble Supreme Court, earlier has dealt with this point, namely considering the scope of remand under Sections 57 and 167 of Cr. P.C. in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 : (AIR 1992 SC 1768) their Lordships have held thus”

8. Having regard to the words in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 167 now the question is whether it can be construed that the police custody, if any, should be within this period of first fifteen days and not later or alternatively in a case if such remand had not been obtained or the number of days of police custody in the first fifteen days are less whether the police can ask subsequently for police custody for full period of fifteen days not availed earlier or for the remaining days during the rest of the periods of ninety days or sixty days covered by the proviso. The decisions mentioned above do not deal with this question precisely except the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dharam Pal case (1982 Cri LJ 1103). Taking the plain language into consideration particularly the words otherwise than in the custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days in the proviso it has to be held that the custody after the expiry of the first fifteen days can only be judicial custody during the rest of the period of ninety days or sixty days and that police custody if found necessary can be ordered only during the first period of fifteen days. To this extent the view taken in Dharam Pal case is correct.

6. Their Lordships have taken into consideration the period of custody during the first remand of fifteen days and the rest of the statutory period prescribed in Section 167(2) of the section and made a distinction that the police custody for the accused is only within first fifteen days from the date of production by the Magistrate and the remaining period would be only judicial custody. Eventually, their Lordships have reached a conclusion that police custody, if found necessary can