http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  623 of 2007

PETITIONER: State of West Bengal

RESPONDENT: Dinesh Dalmia

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/2007

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5124/06) A.K. MATHUR, J.

Leave granted.  This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.9.2006   passed  in A.S.T. No.570  of 2006 by the Calcutta High Court  whereby  the  learned single Judge of the High Court has set aside  the order dated 16.6.2006 passed  by  the learned Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and  directed the  5th Court  of   Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to  consider the matter afresh  and  pass necessary order in the light of observation  made by the  Court. Aggrieved against this order dated 27.9.2006 passed by  learned Single Judge,  the present S.L.P. was  preferred by the  State of West Bengal. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are  that the  Respondent, Dinesh Dalmia filed a petition  under Section  397/482 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the High  Court of Calcutta  for setting  aside the order  of 27th May,  2006 and 16th June, 2006 passed by the  learned Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and  the learned 5th Court of  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta respectively in connection  with GDD 476 dated 24.9.2002  corresponding to G.R.No. 2001  of 2002 being investigated by  Detective Department (Special  Cell)  Lalbazar  pending  before the 5th Court of Metropolitan   Magistrate, Calcutta.

The Secretary  of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association  Limited lodged a written complaint with the  Hare Street Police  Station on 9th September, 2002  alleging  a commission of  offences under Sections 120B/4 20/409/467/468/471/477A of  the Indian Penal Code  against Harish Chandra Biyani  and  others.     The  complaint was treated as First Information Report and  was  registered at Park Street P.S. case No. 476 dated 24.9.2002  under the aforesaid Sections of the I.P.C..  Thereafter, the  investigation  of the case  was taken up by the Detective  Department.  During the course of the investigation,  Investigating Officer prayed for issuance of warrant of arrest  against the  respondent on 12th February, 2006.  Prior to that the  respondent  was arrested  in New Delhi by  the Central Bureau of  Investigation, Bank Securities  and  Fraud Cell, New Delhi in  connection with CBI Case No. RC 4(E)/200 3-BS &F C CBI.    He  was produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Tis Hazari.    On  transit  remand,   the  respondent  was produced before the learned Court of Additional Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 14th February, 2006.   In  the mean time, the Investigation Officer  of the present case  also prayed  for issuance of  production  warrant against the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

respondent before the  Court of  learned Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate Calcutta, as  the  respondent  was arrested and  detained in the  aforesaid  CBI case pending before the Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.  The  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by  order dated 13th February,  2006  allowed   such prayer of the  Investigating Officer  and  directed that the accused-respondent  be produced before the    the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on or  before 22nd February, 2006.  A copy of the said order was sent   to the  Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,   Egmore, Chennai. On  14th February, 2006, the  order dated 13th  February, 2006 passed  by the Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate,  Calcutta was brought  to the  notice of  the Additional Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai by the CBI in their  further remand application.   The Addl.  Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai  observed that the matter of  Calcutta Police   would be considered after the  period  of CBI  custody was over.  On 17th February, 2006 the  Investigating  Officer of the  present case  filed an application before the   learned Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta  intimating that the  accused-respondent was in the custody of  CBI till  24th February, 2006 in connection with the aforesaid CBI   cases and  sought direction for  production of  the accused- respondent in Calcutta on or by 8th March, 2006.   The  Court at  Calcutta by order dated 17th February, 2006  observed that  looking to the gravity of the offences  complained against the   accused-respondent  in the cases pending in Calcutta, he should  not be released  in the CBI cases  at Chennai.    On 23rd February,  2006,  the Investigating Officer in the present case filed an  application  before the Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai regarding   production of the accused-respondent being in the present case  before  the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.    By that time, the accused-respondent came to know  that he was  wanted in two more cases pending against him in Calcutta.    When  the accused-respondent was in  custody on 27thFebruary, 2006  in  connection with the  CBI case  pending before the Addl. Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai,  he voluntarily  surrendered before the  learned Magistrate, Chennai as he was  wanted in connection with the two cases of Calcutta Police.   i.e.   Case No. 300/2002 and  476/2002.    The  accused respondent  surrendered on 27th February, 2006 and  that was accepted by  the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on the  same date.    But  the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate Egmore,  Chennai   remanded the accused  respondent  to the judicial custody till 13th March, 2006.  The learned   Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai further  directed production of the accused before the Court at Calcutta.   An intimation in this regard was  also forwarded to the  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta along with surrender papers of  both the cases.   An intimation dated 28th February, 2006 was  also forwarded  to the  Hare Street Police Station   and  Park  Street Police Station where  those two cases were pending.      The Investigation Officer requested the  learned Addl.  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai    for counter  signature on the production warrant issued by the  learned Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.    The  Addl. Chief  Metropolitan magistrate,  Chennai counter signed the  production  warrant and served upon the  Jail Superintendent, Egmore,  Chennai.   On  3rd March, 2006 in response to the prayer made by  the CBI, the learned Magistrate at Chennai directed for    conducting of Polygraph, Brain Mapping and Nacro Analysis tests   on the  accused-respondent.   The learned Magistrate directed   the Superintendent, Central Jail, Chennai to hand over  the  accused for  the aforesaid test to Inspector, CBI and  produce  him before the Court on 9.3.2006. Thereafter on 11.3.2006 on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

the request of Calcutta Police accused was handed over to  Calcutta Police to be escorted to Calcutta for production before  the Magistrate at Calcutta. Therefore, on the request  made by  the CBI , the  accused respondent  was handed over to the  CBI  team   for the  above tests.  On  13th March, 2006  pursuant to  the  order of the learned Magistrate at Calcutta the accused  respondent was produced  in the Court  of Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate, Calcutta.   The Investigating Officer of the instant  case  requested the Court of Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate,  Calcutta to hand over the accused for 15 days for police remand  for investigation.  An application  was moved  by the defence   praying for bail on behalf of the accused-respondent  before the  Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.  It was  contended  that  the accused-respondent had surrendered  on  27th February, 2006   before the Magistrate at Chennai and the  period of   15 days was over and Police had not filed the challan,  therefore accused be enlarged on bail. As against this,   it was     submitted that he was arrested by CBI  and the accused was  produced before the Calcutta Court  in this case on  13th March,  2006   so the period of 15 days  was not over.    The case  was  fixed   for  16th March, 2006 for further hearing and on that  date the  bail application was rejected and  the accused    was  remanded to police  custody up to 24.3.2006 and the Court   directed to produce  the  accused on the fixed date. The learned Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta  after  considering the submission   took the view that the   custody of the petitioner cannot be considered unless and until  he is physically produced before the  Court and  since in the  present case   it was  done on March 13, 2006  on the strength  of the production warrant issued by the learned Chief    Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta,  the period  of police  custody was to be considered    from the date of his  physical  production.   The accused-respondent  was remanded to the    police custody till 28th March, 2006.    Hence aggrieved against  this order the respondent approached the Calcutta High Court  in revision. The learned  Single Judge has taken the view that   the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has not correctly approached  the matter and has wrongly taken the view that the accused did  not surrender before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,  Chennai on 24.2.2006.  However, the accused was given liberty  to file application before the said Court afresh and  the  Magistrate was directed to consider the same in the light of the  aforesaid judgment. It was also mentioned that still 8  more  days  from 19.5.2005 to 27.5.2006 were left to the Police to  file final report. The Police still did not file the final report. Then again accused moved  the bail application before the  Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta rejected the bail application  holding that statutory period of 90 days has not expired by his  order dated 27.5.2006. The final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of  Criminal Procedure was submitted before the Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and the case was transferred  to Vth Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Then again  on 12.6.2006 a bail application was filed before the Vth  Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Learned Metropolitan  Magistrate rejected the bail application holding that this bail  application amounted to review of the order and he has no power  of review, therefore, the same was rejected by order dated  16.6.2006. Aggrieved against that order the present revision petition  was filed before the High Court. The Calcutta High Court  took the view that the  detention  of the accused  should be counted w.e.f. 27th February, 2006   when the accused alleged to have surrendered himself  in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

case of 476/2002 before the  Additional Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai  and accordingly held that  more  than 90 days period has expired.  Therefore,  the matter should  be considered by the Metropolitan Magistrate again in the light  of observation made by the Court, by order dated 27.9.2006.  The revision petition of the accused was allowed.                Aggrieved against the  order of the  Calcutta  High Court,    dated 27.9.2006 the present appeal was filed. We heard learned counsel for both the parties and  perused the record. The   crucial  question before us is whether  the detention period should be counted from 13th March, 2006  when the police took the accused in  custody or  the period  should be counted from 27th February, 2006 when the accused  surrendered  in the case of 476/2002 before the Metropolitan  Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Learned  counsel  for the State  submitted that  under Sub-Section  2 of Section 167  of   Criminal Procedure Code the period  should only be counted  when he is arrested/ taken in custody  by the police not before   the date  when he surrendered  before the Magistrate on 27th  February, 2006.  Learned counsel  submitted that in fact the  accused was taken in custody  by the police on 13th March, 2006   and was produced before the Magistrate on 13th March, 2006   and on that date the police sought the custody of accused   for   completion of the investigation.  Therefore, the period   commences from 13th March, 2006.    In  respect thereof,  learned  counsel invited  our attention to a case of  Uday  Mohanlal Acharya  v.  State of Maharashtra  reported in   (2001) 5 SCC 453    as against  this Learned counsel for the  respondent submitted that  the period should be counted from   the date  when the accused-respondent surrendered in case No.  476/2002 before the Metropolitan  Magistrate, Egmore,  Chennai.        The challan has not been filed within the period of  90 days. Therefore, the accused-respondent is entitled to bail  as per sub-section (2) of  Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.   In respect  thereof, learned counsel invited our attention to cases  of  Niranjan Singh & Another  v.   Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote &  Ors.  reported in (1980) 2 SCC 559, Central Bureau of  Investigation, Special Investigation Cell, New Delhi  v.  Anupam  J. Kulkarni reported  in  (1992) 3 SCC 141  and learned  counsel  also invited our attention to the case Directorate of   Enforcement  v. Deepak Mahajan and Another  reported in   (1994)3 SCC 440 (para 44).               We have considered the rival submissions  of  the parties  and perused the record.         The  admitted position is that there were  two cases  pending in the  Calcutta Court against the accused  and the   accused-respondent was arrested at Delhi in CBI case  and he  was produced before the  Additional Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate Egmore, Chennai under the investigation of CBI.   The accused was remanded for the investigation before the CBI  after that the accused was sent for judicial custody in  the CBI  case.    The Calcutta  Court directed the production of the  accused-respondent and  a request was made before the    Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for  the custody of the accused in the cases pending before the  Calcutta.    In fact the accused was detained  in CBI   case   pending in Egmore, Chennai.    The CBI   sought the  police   remand of  accused  for some scientific test and the accused  was   sent for the test and  after that the accused  was sent  back by the CBI to the  Egmore, Court.  Then   an order  dated  11th March, 2006 was passed  for  handing over  of the accused  to the Calcutta Police for being produced before the Magistrate  on 13th March, 2006  and on 11th March, 2006 Police took   physical custody of the accused  under the order of the  Metropolitan Magistrate,  Egmore, Chennai  and on the  basis of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the  transit warrant, the accused was taken over  on 11th March,  2006 and was produced before the  Calcutta court  on 13th  March, 2006 and  from there the accused  was sent to the  custody of the police for investigation.    Therefore,  in  the  sequence of event,    physical custody of the accused was taken  over  for  investigation by the Calcutta Police on 13.3.2006.     The accused  was  very well aware that  there were two cases  registered against him  in Calcutta for which he was required by  the  Police,  so he voluntarily surrendered  before the   Magistrate on 27th February, 2006 when he was  already in  custody in relation to  the CBI case.   Therefore,  this voluntary  surrender cannot be conceived to be detention under a case  registered at Calcutta i.e.476/2002.  Though knowing well that   a requisition was  sent by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta   but in fact the physical custody  of the accused was given by  the Calcutta Police for investigation by the order of the  Metropolitan Magistrate  on 13th March, 2006.   Therefore, so  called  notional surrender of the  accused in the case  No.  476/02 of  Calcutta cannot  be   deemed  to  be  a  custody    of    the    police for  investigation  for   a case    registered     against   the  accused at Calcutta.. In  fact the accused  continued to be under the judicial custody in relation to the CBI  case. It may be relevant to mention here that  the CBI again  took  the accused in custody for scientific test  and he was  surrendered back on 10th of March, 2006 and on 11th March, the  Calcutta police was given a custody  of the  accused by the   Egmore  Court, Chennai to be produced before the Magistrate in  Calcutta on 13th March, 2006 and he was produced before the  Calcutta Court on 13th March, 2006 and the Court directed the   custody of the accused to the police on 13th March, 2006 for  investigation in the criminal case  registered against him in  Calcutta.  Therefore,  the police custody will be treated from  13th March, 2006 and not from 27th February, 2006.  In  this  back-ground, the view taken by the learned single Judge that  since he voluntarily  surrendered on 27th February, 2006,  therefore, he shall be  deemed to be under the police custody  w.e.f. 27th February, 2006  is far from correct and 90 days shall  be counted from that date only i.e. 13.3.2006.  Section 167 of the CR.P.C.  clearly  lays down that  where  investigation cannot be completed within twenty four hours  and  accused is under arrest with Police, he has to be produced  before Magistrate for further detention if necessary. This is a  salutary provision to safeguard the citizen’s liberty so that  Police cannot illegally detain any citizen.  Sub-sections (1) & (2)   of Section 167 which are relevant  for our purposes read as  under: "167 Procedure when investigation cannot be completed  in twenty-four hours.         (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in  custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot  be completed within the period of twenty four hours  fixed  by Section 57, and there are grounds for  believing that the  accusation or information is well- founded, the officer in charge of the police  station  or the police officer making the investigation,  if he  is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall  forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial   Magistrate a copy  of the entries in the diary  hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and   shall at the same time forward the accused to such  Magistrate.         (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is  forwarded under  this  section may, whether he has  or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to  time, authorize the detention of the accused in such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, a term not  exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no   jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and  considers further detention unnecessary,  he may  order the accused to be forwarded  to a Magistrate  having such jurisdiction: Provided that \026               {(a)  the Magistrate may authorize the detention of  the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of  the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is  satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so,  but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of  the accused person in custody under this paragraph  for a total period exceeding- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an  offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life  or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten  years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any  other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period  of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the  accused person shall be released on bail, if he is   prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person  released on bail  under this sub-section shall be  deemed to be released under the provisions of  Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter; (b) no Magistrate shall authorize detention in any   custody under this section unless the accused is  produced before him; ) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially  empowered in  this behalf by the High Court, shall  authorize detention in the custody of the police."

Sub-section (1) says that when a person is arrested and  detained in custody and it appears that investigation cannot  be completed within 24 hours fixed under Section 57 and  there are grounds  of believing that accusation or   information is well-founded,   the officer in charge of the   Police Station  or  the Police Officer making  the  investigation not below the rank of sub-inspector shall  produce  the accused before the nearest judicial magistrate.  The mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. is that  when it is not possible to complete investigation within 24  hours then it is the duty of the Police to produce the accused  before the Magistrate. Police cannot detain any person in  their custody beyond that period.  Therefore,   Sub-Section  (1) pre-supposes  that the police should have custody of an  accused in  relation to certain accusation for which the   cognizance has been taken  and the  matter is under  investigation.  This check is on police   for detention of any  citizen .  Sub-Section (2) says that if the  accused is   produced before the Magistrate and if the Magistrate is  satisfied looking to accusation then he can give a  remand to  the  police for investigation not exceeding 15 days  in the  whole.   But  the proviso further  gives a discretion to the  Magistrate that he can authorize  detention  of the accused  otherwise then  the police  custody beyond the period of  15  days  but no Magistrate shall authorize detention of the  accused in  police custody for a total period of 90 days  for  the offences punishable   with death, imprisonment for  life  or imprisonment  for a term  of not  less than  ten years  and   no magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused   person in custody for a total period of 60 days when  the  investigation relates to  any other offence and on expiry of  the period of 90 days  or  60 days as the case may be. He

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

shall be released if he is willing to furnish bail. Therefore,   the reading of sub-Sections (1) & (2)  with proviso  clearly  transpires that the  incumbent should be  in fact under  the  detention of police for  investigation.    In the present case,   the accused was not  arrested by the police nor was he in the  police  custody before 13.3.2006. He voluntarily surrendered  before a Magistrate and no physical custody of the accused  was given to the police for investigation.  The whole purpose  is that the accused should not be detained more than 24  hours and  subject to 15 days  police remand and it can  further be extended up to 90/60 as the case may be.   But  the custody of police for  investigation purpose cannot be  treated judicial custody/ detention in another case.   The  police custody here means the Police custody in a particular  case  for investigation and not judicial custody in another  case. This notional surrender cannot be treated as Police  custody so as to count 90 days from that notional surrender.  A notorious  criminal may have number of cases  pending in  various police station in  city or outside city, a notional  surrender in pending case for another FIR outside city or of  another police-station  in same city, if the notional surrender  is counted then the police will not get the opportunity to get  custodial investigation.  The period of detention  before a  Magistrate can be treated as device to avoid physical custody  of the police and claim the  benefit of proviso to Sub-Section  1 and can be released on bail.  This  kind of device cannot be  permitted under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.   The condition is   that the accused must be in the custody of the police and  so  called deemed surrender in another criminal case cannot be  taken as starting point for counting 15 days police remand or  90 days or 60 days as the case may be. Therefore,  this kind  of surrender by the accused cannot be deemed to  be in  the  Police custody  in the case of 476/02 in Calcutta.  The  Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai could not  have released the  accused on bail as there was already cases pending against   him in Calcutta for which a production warrant had already  been issued by the Calcutta Court.    In this connection  in  the case of  State of Maharashtra  Vs. Bharati Chandmal  Varma (Mrs.)  reported in (2002)2 SCC 121  their Lordships  has very clearly  mentioned that: "For the application of the proviso to Section 167(2)  of the Code, there is no necessity to consider when  the investigation could legally have  commenced.    That proviso is intended only for keeping an arrested  person under detention for the purpose of  investigation and the legislature has provided a  maximum period for such detention..  On the expiry  of the said period the further custody becomes  unauthorized and hence it is mandated that the  arrested person shall be released on bail if he is  prepared to and does  furnish bail.  It may be a  different position if the same accused was found to  have been involved in some other offence  disconnected from the offence for  which he is  arrested.  In such an eventuality the officer  investigating such second offence can exercise the  power of arresting  him in connection with the second  case.  But if the investigation into the offence for  which   he was  arrested initially had revealed other  ramifications associated therewith, any further  investigation would continue to relate to the same  arrest and hence the period envisaged in the proviso  to Section 167(2) would remain unextendable."                Therefore, it is very clearly mentioned that the  accused must be in  custody of the police for the investigation.   

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

But if the investigation into the offence for which he is  arrested initially  revealed  other ramifications associated  therewith, any  further investigation  would continue to relate  to the same arrest and hence the period envisaged  in the  proviso to Section 167(2) would remain unextendable.    Meaning thereby that  during the course   of  the investigation   any  further  ramification comes to the notice of the Police  then the period will not be extendable.    But  it clearly  lays  down that the accused must be  in custody of police. In the  case of Directoate of Enforcement  v. Deepak Mahajan and  Another  reported in  (1994)3 SCC 440   their   Lordships   observed that Section 167   is one of the provisions falling  under Chapter XII of the  Code commencing from Section 154  and ending with Section 176 under the caption "Information to  the police and other powers to investigate".    Their Lordships  also observed that main object of Section 167 is the  production of an arrestee before a Magistrate within twenty  four hours as fixed by Section 57 when investigation cannot be   completed  within that period so that the Magistrate can take  further course of action as  contemplated  under sub-Section  (2) of section 167.   In para 54 their Lordships  have also  observed with regard to  the pre-requisite condition  which   reads as under: "54.  The above deliberation leads to a derivation that  to invoke Section 167(1),  it is not an indispensable  pre-requisite condition that in all circumstances, the  arrest should have been effected only by a police  officer and none else and that there must necessarily  be records of entries of a case diary.  Therefore,  it  necessarily follows that a mere production of an  arrestee before a  competent Magistrate by an  authorized  officer or an officer empowered to arrest  (notwithstanding the fact that he is not a police  officer in its stricto sensu)on a reasonable belief that  the arrestee " has been guilty of an offence  punishable"  under the provisions of the  Special Act  is sufficient for the Magistrate  to take that person  into his custody on his being satisfied of the three  preliminary conditions, namely (1) the arresting  officer is legally competent to make the arrest; (2)  that the  particulars of the  offence or the accusation  for which the person is arrested  or other grounds for  such arrest do exist and are well-founded; and (3)  that the provisions of the special Act in regard to the  arrest of the persons and the productions of the  arrestee serve the purpose  of Section 167(1) of the  Code."          As against this  learned counsel for the accused respondent  has  invited our attention   to the case of Niranjan Singh & Anr. v.  Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors. [ (1980) 2 SCC 359]. This  case only relates to ’custody’ under section 439 Cr.P.C.  Therefore, this case does not provide us any assistance  whatsoever. In another case, Central Bureau of Investigation,  Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni  [(1992) 3 SCC 141] their Lordships observed in paragraph 11  as follows :

"In one occurrence it might so happen that the  accused might have committed  several offences  and  the  police may arrest him in connection with one or  two offences on the basis of  the available  information and obtain police custody.  If during the   investigation his complicity in more serious offences  during the same occurrence is disclosed that does not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

authorize the police to ask  for police custody for a  further period after the expiry of the first fifteen  days.    If that is permitted then the police can go on  adding some offence or the other of a serious nature  at various stages and seek further detention in police  custody repeatedly,   this would defeat the very  object underlying Section 167.  But their Lordships   put an occasion  and added that limitation shall not  apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of  the  arrested accused is disclosed.  That would be a  different transaction and if an accused is in judicial  custody in connection with one case and to  enable the  police to complete their investigation of the other  case they can require his detention in police custody   for the purpose of associating him with the   investigation  in other case.   In such a situation he  must be formally arrested  in connection with other  case and then obtain the  order of the Magistrate for  detention in police custody."    

Their Lordships have clarified that if one case is registered  against  the accused  in which during the course of investigation  it is found that  he has committed more than one offence then  it will be treated to be one investigation and  for each offence a  separate police remand cannot be sought.   But in case it is a  different offence which has been  committed by him then it will  be a separate case registered   and separate investigation will  be  taken up and for that the detention by the  accused in the  previous case cannot be counted towards a new case or  different case registered against the accused. In fact, the  observation in this  case answers the question raised in this    petition.   Therefore, their Lordships observed;  "the occurrence constituting to different  transactions give rise to two different cases and the  exercise of power under Sections 167(1) and (2)  should  be in  consonance with the  object underlying  the said provision in respect of  each of those  occurrences which constitute two difference  cases\005\005\005.  Arrest and detention in  custody in the  context of Section 167(1) &(2)   of the Code has to  be  truly viewed  with regard to the investigation of  that specific  case in which the  accused person has  been taken into custody.

Therefore,  for the separate  offence the accused has to  be tried  separately and for that  the  proceedings will be  initiated separately and independent  remand can be  sought by  the accused. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion  that the  view taken by the learned Single Judge of the  Calcutta High Court is not correct and  we accordingly  set  side the order  of the Calcutta High Court dated 27.9.2006   and  allow  the  appeal  filed  by the  State of West Bengal and direct the Metropolitan Magistrate to  proceed  in  the matter  in accordance with law.