M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Appellant/Petitioner has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court (as an aggrieved person) as against the order dated 16.03.2018 in Crl. M.P. No. 85 of 2018 in RC No. 03/2018/NIA/DLI passed by the Learned Special Judge for NIA Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai.

2. Earlier, the Learned Special Judge for NIA Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai, while passing the impugned order in Crl. M.P. No. 85 of 2018 in RC No. 03/2018/NIA/DLI [filed by the Appellant/Petitioner] on 16.03.2018, at paragraphs 30 to 36, it is observed as under:

“30. Among the three rulings submitted by the learned counsel in support of his arguments, the ruling in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni has been made to the point in this aspect. In the said judgment, it has been held as follows:

“13. Whenever any person is arrested under Section 57 Cr.P.C. he should be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours as mentioned therein. Such Magistrate may or may not have jurisdiction to try the case. If Judicial Magistrate is not available, the police officer may transmit the arrested accused to the nearest Executive Magistrate on whom the judicial powers have been conferred. The Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance authorise the detention of the accused in such custody i.e. either police or judicial from time to time but the total period of detention cannot exceed fifteen days in the whole. Within this period of fifteen days there can be more than one order changing the nature of such custody either from police to judicial or vice-versa. If the arrested accused is produced before the Executive Magistrate he is empowered to authorise the detention in such custody either police or judicial only for a week, in the same manner namely by one or more orders but after one week he should transmit him to the nearest Judicial Magistrate along with the records. When the arrested accused is so transmitted the Judicial Magistrate, for the remaining period, that is to say excluding one week or the number of days of detention ordered by the Executive Magistrate, may authorise further detention within that period of first fifteen days to such custody either police or judicial. After the expiry of the first period of fifteen days the further remand during the period of investigation can only be in judicial custody. There cannot be any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first fifteen days even in a case where some more offences either serious or otherwise committed by him in the same transaction come to light at a later stage...........

........Consequently the first period of fifteen days mentioned in Section 167(2) has to be computed from the date of such detention and after the expiry of the period of first fifteen days it should be only judicial custody.”

31. In view of the above ruling, it is clear that police custody cannot be granted after the expiry of first fifteen days of initial remand to judicial custody of any person.

32. In another ruling submitted by the learned counsel made in K.S. Palanichamy v. The State, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has also held that the police custody granted after the expiry of first fifteen days of initial remand is not sustainable.

33. Therefore, it is clear that police custody cannot be granted after the expiry of first fifteen days of initial remand. In this case, the first fifteen days of initial remand of both the respondents have expired long back. Further they have been placed under police custody at the hands of the then investigating officer, as stated above, well within the said stipulated period.

34. Since this petition has been filed under Section 43D of the UAP Act, which we have already decided to be maintainable even now, let us consider the specific provision made in the said section of law in respect of a police custody. One of the provisos that have been inserted into Section 167(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. by way of S