Mayukha Kommoju, Student at Damodaram Sanjeevayya National Law University.
CASE NAME: CBI V/S ANUPAM J. KULKARNI
CITATION: 1992 AIR 1768, 1992 SCR (3) 158
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA
INTRODUCTION:
The case of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vs Anupam J. Kulkarni is a landmark judgment in criminal procedure law in India. This case primarily deals with the interpretation of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which addresses the process to be followed when an individual is arrested and held in police custody. In this decision, the Indian Supreme Court established significant rules about the remand of an accused person to police custody following the initial 15day period.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE
On September 16, 1991, the abduction of four Mumbai diamond merchants and a man named Shri Kulkarni was reported to the Tughlak Road Police Station in New Delhi. The case was assigned to the C.B.I. (Central Bureau of Investigation). The investigation revealed that not only were the four diamond merchants abducted, but also Shri Kulkarni and a driver named Babulal. They were kidnapped between September 14 and 15, 1991, from two different hotels in Delhi.
Shri Kulkarni was arrested on October 4, 1991, and brought before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi on October 5, 1991. Following C.B.I. orders, he was kept in custody until October 11, 1991. A demonstration was organized on October 10, 1991, for an identification test, but Shri Kulkarni refused to participate, which was reported by the competent Munsif (a judicial officer).
On October 11, 1991, the investigating officer requested to keep Shri Kulkarni detained, and this request was granted. However, Kulkarni was taken to a hospital the same night due to reported illness. He stayed in the hospital until October 21, 1991, and was then moved to the cardiology ward of G.B. Pant Hospital. It wasn’t until October 29, 1991, that the Magistrate remanded Kulkarni to judicial custody, and he was subsequently sent to jail.
Since the police were unable to take Kulkarni into police custody during this time, the investigating officer again requested the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to transfer him to police custody. The Magistrate, relying on a decision by the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Delhi Administration v. Dharam Pal and others’ ignored the police request. This decision was challenged, and a revision was filed in the Delhi High Court. The abducted diamond merchants did not accuse Shri Kulkarni of any wrongdoing, and he had already been interrogated by the C.B.I. for nearly seven days without revealing any incriminating information. Therefore, the court deemed it unnecessary to keep him in prison and granted him bail. However, the High Court did not address the issue of whether a person could be taken into police custody after the initial 15day period by the judge before whom they were presented. This unresolved question led to the appeals challenging the High Court’s resolution.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 167 – The whole purpose of 167 Cr. P.C is that the accused should not be detained for more than 24 hours and subject to 15 days police custody and further it may be extended upto 90/60 days, as the case may be.
- Section 57 of the Criminal Code – An arrested person may not be detained for more than twenty-four hours. No police officer shall detain a person arrested without a warrant for a longer period than is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, and such period shall not exceed, without a special order of the magistrate under section 167,twentyfour hours, exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest tothe magistrate’s court.
- Section 344 of the Criminal Code – Section 344 of the Criminal Code deals with summary proceedings for providing false evidence. According to the provision, the court concerned must first form an opinion that the witness appearing in the proceedings before it has knowingly or intentionally given or fabricated false evidence.
- Section 309 of the Criminal Code – 309 of the Criminal Code. is the section dealing with detention during court proceedings. In addition, after filing the indictment section 209 civil can also be used to remand theaccused by the Magistrates’ Court (if applicable) which will refer the case to the Court of Appeal if the case is decided exclusively by the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES:
- Whether a person arrested and produced before the nearest magistrate as required under the section 167(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can still be remanded to police custody after the expiry of the initial period of 15 days?
- Whether a person arrested in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him durinan occurrence can be detained again in police custody in respect of another offence committed by him in the same case and which fact comes to light after the expiry of the period of the first 15 days of his arrest?
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETETIONER
The Additional Solicitor General representing the C.B.I. argued that the Dharam Pal case was wrongly decided and that the High Court made a mistake in granting bail to Shri Kulkarni without addressing whether he could be remanded to police custody. He pointed out that there might be situations where remanding a person to police custody becomes essential at a later stage in the investigation.
He also argued that in serious cases, it is often impossible for the police to gather all necessary information within the first 15 days. If crucial information is revealed later and police custody is denied, it would hinder the investigation and lead to a failure of justice.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, or the accused, argued that according to Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, police custody should only be granted by the Magistrate during the first 15 days from the date the accused is presented before the Magistrate. They contended that any custody after this initial period should be judicial custody, and the question of granting police custody after the first 15 days does not arise.
The investigating officer reapplied for police custody, but the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, citing a Delhi High Court judgment in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Dharam Pal and others (1982 Crl. L.J. 1103), refused. The decision was challenged in the Delhi High Court. The High Court Judge noted that there was insufficient evidence against Kulkarni and granted him bail but did not address whether police custody could be extended after 15 days. This order is now challenged in these appeals.
JUDGEMENT:
The High Court granted bail to Kulkarni without deciding whether he could be remanded to police custody. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated that police custody is generally not favored by the law and should only be allowed in special circumstances. The Court emphasized that a magistrate can order police custody after careful judicial review. However, it clarified that after the initial 15-day period, the accused cannot be kept in police custody, even if new offences are discovered. The Supreme Court partially approved the judgment in *State (Delhi Admn.) v. Dharam Pal and others* and clarified the procedures for custody and remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT:
Judicial remand refers to the process where a higher court sends a case back to a lower court for further proceedings. It also applies when an accused is taken back into custody for further investigation.
1. Arrest and Presentation to Magistrate:
- Under Section 57 of the CrPC, anyone arrested must be brought before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours.
- If this magistrate cannot try the case, the police can transfer the accused to the closest competent judicial or executive magistrate.
2. Custody Authorized by Judicial Magistrate:
- The Judicial Magistrate can authorize either police or judicial custody for up to 15 days in total.
- During this period, the custody type can be changed multiple times between police and judicial custody.
3. Custody Authorized by Executive Magistrate:
- If the accused is brought before an Executive Magistrate, they can authorize custody for up to one week.
- After this week, the accused must be sent to the nearest Judicial Magistrate with relevant documents.
4. Post15 Day Custody:
- After the initial 15-day period, any further remand must be in judicial custody.
- Police custody is not allowed after 15 days, even if new, serious offences are discovered later.
5. Separate Offences:
- If the accused is already in judicial custody for one case, they can still be arrested and investigated for a different case.
- The Magistrate can act according to Section 167(2) for the new case.
6. Time Limits for Investigation:
- If the investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, depending on the offence, the accused must be released on bail as per Section 167(2).
- These periods are calculated from the date of remand by the Magistrate, not from the police arrest.
- Only judicial custody is allowed after the initial 15-day period.
CONCLUSION:
Regardless of whether a person is already in judicial custody for one case, they can be legally arrested for involvement in a new case and investigated for that new offence. The Magistrate can follow Section 167(2) and remand the person to the appropriate authority for the initial 15-day period, and then proceed as required. The judgment was well-considered, relying appropriately on decisions made by lower courts, legislative history, and other relevant factors.
