The court upheld that the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act allows police custody beyond 30 days, emphasizing that special acts prevail over general acts regarding remand procedures.

JUDGMENT

The appellants preferred this appeal under Section 12 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (for short ‘KCOC Act’), being aggrieved by the order passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge (KCOCA Special Judge) Belagavi dated 02.09.2020 and thereby remanding the accused Nos.1 to 9 to the custody.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused Nos.1 to 9 were involved in the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504, 506, 120(B) R/w. Section 14(A) of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST POA Act’) and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act. It is further stated that, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 were arrested on 08.05.2020, accused Nos. 4 to 6 were arrested on 11.05.2020, accused No.7 was arrested on 12.05.2020, accused No.8 was arrested on 13.05.2020 and accused No.9 was arrested on 18.05.2020 respectively. That, during the course of investigation the investigation officer invoked Section 12 0(B) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the KCOC Act. On 29.07.2020, the investigating officer filed requisition through the public prosecutor stating about the progress of the investigation that the accused No.1 was arrested on 08.05.2020 and 90 days of custody would be completed on 05.08.2020. Since the investigation was not over and it is in progress, the investigating officer sought for extension of time for another period of 90 days to complete the investigation and to submit the final report. The said application was allowed on 30.07.2020 and time was extended for another 90 days to conduct investigation and submit the final report.

4. In the mean time, the investigating officer filed an application on 02.09.2020 and sought for the police custody of accused Nos.1 to 9 for a period of 15 days. The Trial Court passed an order and handed over the accused to the police custody for 7 days. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the appellants are before this Court seeking to set aside the order dated 02.09.2020.

5. Heard Sri.Z.M.Hattarki, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.Praveen Uppar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Avinash Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. Sri.Z.M.Hattarki, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order dated 02.09.2020 and 19.10.2020 passed by the Trial Court are against the established provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the KCOC Act. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

7. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has no authority to entrust the accused persons to the police custody beyond 15 days after the first remand. It is further submitted that, the Special Act provides 30 days as a period for entrusting the accused to police custody in view of Section 22 (2)(a) of the KCOC Act. It is not permissible to hand over the accused to the police custody beyond 30 days.

8. It is further submitted that the appellants were arrested in between 08.05.2020 and 18.05.2020. The investigation officer sought for the police custody on 02.09.2020 i.e., after lapse of nearly three months which is not permissible under law. Hence, the order of handing over the appellants to police custody is unreasonable and unsustainable and the same has to be set as