THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 8510, 8511, 8521 and 8617 of 2011. COMMON ORDER: Since the subject matter involved in these criminal petitions is one and same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The brief facts of the case are as follows: M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited (M/s.O.M.C) is engaged in the business of mining iron ore. It holds three mining leases granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Ms.Nos.117, 7 and 73 dated 07.10.2006, 10.01.2007 and 28.07.2007, for 39.50 hectares, 68.50 hectares and 25.98 hectares respectively. While the things stood thus, on coming to the notice of the Government of Andhra Pradesh about pilferage of minerals from Bellary Reserve Forest allegedly by M/s.O.M.C. and M/s. Bellary Iron Ore Private Limited (M/s. B.I.O), the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.467, dated 17.11.2009, authorizing Delhi Special Police to exercise the powers and jurisdiction in the area relating to boundary disputes and illegal mining activities of M/s. O.M.C. and M/s.B.I.O. in the Bellary Reserve Forest and other related matters. Pursuant thereof, the Central Government issued notification dated 01.12.2009 extending the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Having been empowered to conduct the investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ for short) registered a criminal case on 07.12.2009 vide RC.No.17 (A)/2009 under Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411, 427 & 447 of IPC; Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 21 read with Sections 4 (1) (A) & 23 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, against M/s. O.M.C and M/s. B.I.O., and also against some unknown public servants. Challenging the G.O. dated 17.11.2009 and the notification dated 01.12.2009 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Central Government respectively, M/s. O.M.C. filed W.P.No.27120 of 2009 before this Court, and this Court, by an order dated 14.12.2009, granted stay of all further proceedings including investigation in F.I.R. in RC.17 (A)/2009 for a period of six weeks. Subsequently, the said stay was extended from time to time. Thereafter, the C.B.I. and the Union of India filed two vacate applications being WVMP.Nos.68 and 82 of 2010 respectively, seeking vacation of interim order dated 14.12.2009 and as extended from time to time. This Court, by order dated 14.06.2010, dismissed the vacate stay petitions and directed the continuance of interim stay till disposal of the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the C.B.I. preferred Writ Appeal No.532 of 2010 and the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred Writ Appeal No.681 of 2010. After hearing both the sides, a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 16.12.2010, allowed these two writ appeals setting aside the impugned orders and observed that inquiry/investigation into boundary dispute shall have to await orders of the Supreme Court. In pursuance thereof, the C.B.I. resumed its investigation and filed a memo on 05.09.2011 in RC.No.17 (A) of 2009 before the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, adding Sections 409 and 468 of IPC and the names of one Gali Janardhana Reddy and B.V.Srinivasa Reddy as Director and Managing Director respectively of M/s. O.M.C., as accused in this case, and arrested them. After arrest, the accused persons came to be produced on the same day i.e., 05.09.2011 along with their remand report before the Special Court constituted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the C.B.I. filed an application being Crl.M.P.No.1931 of 2011 in R.C.No.17 (A) of 2009, for the police custody of the accused for certain reasons set out in the remand application, whereas the accused, while opposing their remand to custody, filed applications being Crl.M.P.Nos.1946 and 1947 of 2011, seeking their enlargement on bail in the case. The Special Court, vide docket order dated 05.09.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1931 of 2011, while observing that the petition will be taken up for hearing on 07.09.2011, remanded the accused persons to judicial custody till 19.09.2011. However, on 13.09.2011, the Special Court, vide its common order dismissed the bail petitions filed by the accused persons and allowed Crl.M.P.No.1931 of 2011 ordering police custody of the accused from 13.09.2011 to 19.09.2011. Further, the accused were directed to be handed over to R.M.Khan, Additional S.P., C.B.I., by the jail authorities, and they were also directed to be produced in the Court by 10.30 a.m. on 19.09.2011 and later to be handed over at Jail on the same day i.e., 19.09.2011. Aggrieved by the docket order dated 05.09.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1931 of 2011, M/s.O.M.C. represented by its Director-Gali Janardhan Reddy filed Crl.M.P.No.8510 of 2011 and the Managing Director-B.V.Srinivas Reddy of the said M/s.O.M.C. filed Crl.P.No.8511 of 2011, whereas questioning the common order, dated 13.09.2011, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1931 of 2011, Criminal Petition Nos.8521 and 8617 of 2011 are filed by the very same Gali Janardhan Reddy and B.V.Srinivas Reddy in the capacity of Director and Managing Director of M/s.O.M.C. Heard. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused submitted that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to remand the accused in the absence of production of the copies of the case diaries as per the provisions of Section 167 (1) of the Cr.P.C. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 167 (1) is mandatory in nature. The learned Senior Counsel further argues that the object of production of the copies of the case diaries is to enable the Court to find out as to whether sufficient grounds exist for the remand of the accused, be it to police custody or judicial custody. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that in the case on hand, the entire records were not forwarded to the court while producing the accused before the Court for remand, therefore, in view of settled law on the point, it has got to be said that the order of remand of the accused persons initially to judicial custody and thereafter to police custody was not only erroneous, but also illegal. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the C.B.I. has no jurisdiction to investigate the case and necessarily there should be an order by the State Government to investigate the case. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General, submitted that Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory, but it is directory in nature. He further submitted that mere non-production of copies of case diaries does not vitiate the Magistrate’s order of remand of the accused to police custody and that if there is credible evidence that the entries were already in existence, it would not necessarily be out-weighed by a mere omission to send a copy of them along with the remand report. In support of his contention, he relied on a case in Sudha Shivarame Gowda v. State of Karnataka[1] and a case in Ramakrishnaiah v. State[2]. Perused the entire material on record. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows: “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 custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for 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:” Before going into the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C., the entire XII Chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure that prescribes the information to the police and their powers to investigate has to be looked into. The Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law that prescribes the procedure as to how the investigation to be conducted by the police officer. The act of the Magistrate while remanding the accused on the basis of Section 167 (1) Cr.P.C., is complimentary in nature. The said chapter deals with two things i.e., how to regulate the investigations and the powers of the Court. In the present case, when the accused persons were produced before the concerned Court seeking their remand, the entire case records were not produced. There is no provision for filing any remand report in the entire code, but it is in vogue. Instead of sending the entire records, the Investigation Officer has forwarded the gist of the investigation done so far to the concerned Court. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the intent of the Code is to forward the entire entries, but not the gist of the investigation. This Court is of the view that the object of enacting Section 167 Cr.P.C., is that the entries in the diary afford to the Magistrate information upon which he can decide whether or not the detention of the accused person in custody should be authorized and also to enable him to form an opinion as to whether any further detention is necessary. Further, Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision to the Magistrate to remand the accused after satisfying himself that as per the remand report and the first information report, there is necessity of remanding the accused persons to the judicial custody. As can be seen from the impugned order dated 13.09.2011, it is to be noticed that the learned Special Judge has clearly observed that the remand report shows the details of the investigation done by C.B.I. right from the date of registration of Crime. Learned Magistrate further observed that the Investigating Officer was attending the Court along with the original case diary on all the date of hearings right from 05.09.2011 and finally, after a lapse of four days i.e., on 09.09.2011, submitted the entire original case diary in the open Court enabling the Court to further remand the accused. Further, at the time of production of the accused, the Investigating Officer was available in the Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that the provisions of Section 167 (1) is only directory in nature to the Investigating Officer. Production of entries in case diary is not indispensable at the time of remand, when other material is placed before the Magistrate concerned. Insofar as the permission of the State Government to investigate the present crime is concerned, it is the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for C.B.I., submitted that the C.B.I. has already obtained permission from the State Government to investigate the present Crime. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that permission is given to the C.B.I. only to investigate the crime within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh, whereas the respondent police are trying to investigate the case beyond the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh, which is illegal in nature. This Court is of the view that the intention of the Legislature in seeking permission of the State Government to investigate the crime in a particular state by the C.B.I. is only to avoid any complaint of interference with the powers of the State. Further, when a particular State Government granted permission to investigate a crime committed in its state and if that investigation reveals that the said crime is extended to the other state, there is nothing wrong in investigating the case beyond the jurisdiction of the State that granted permission. In the present case, the money or the assets acquired through the commission of crime by the accused in the State of Andhra Pradesh appears to have been invested in the State of Karnataka, as such, there is nothing wrong in investigating the said fact. Further, in the present case, already the Apex Court has granted permission to the C.B.I. to investigate the misdeeds of the accused in the State of Karnataka also. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even as per the Rules of Practice, the remand made by the trial Court is illegal, this Court is of the view that the Rule cannot be beyond the scope of the Act and that the Court already decides whether the Act empowers the Magistrate to remand the accused even in the absence of the entire records under Section 167 (1) Cr.P.C. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even as per the Rules of Practice, the remand made by the trial Court is illegal is rejected. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless the name of a public servant is found place in the F.I.R., a crime cannot be registered for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly, none of the names of the public servants are found place in the F.I.R. But, during pendency of the present petition, some of the officials were arrested in this case, even though their names were not found place in the F.I.R. Further, this Court is of the view that if a crime disclose an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even in the absence of mentioning of a name of a Government servant or a public servant, the F.I.R. can be registered. In the case on hand, the allegations reveal an offence committed against the State. Hence, non-mentioning of any of the names of the public servant or Government servant cannot be a ground to reject the F.I.R. Further more, during pendency of the present petition, some of the public servants and Government servants were arrested on the allegation of their involvement in the present crime. Further, this Court is of the view that when the information reveals an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act even in the absence of mentioning of any of the name of the public servants, a First Information Report can be registered. The registration of F.I.R. empowers the Investigating Officer to find out the involvement of the public servants and Government servants in the commission of offence. Even assuming for a moment that the remand of the accused by the learned Special Judge is beyond the jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same cannot be questioned by way of invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If the petitioners are aggrieved over the remand and judicial custody, they can invoke appropriate provisions for their release before the competent Court. For all the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judge in remanding the accused to judicial custody as also the police custody thereafter. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 19.12.2011 v v [1] 1993 CRI.L.J.1533 [2] 1965 (2) Cri.L.J. 458