THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2058 of 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.2001 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1931 of 2011 in R.C.No.17(A) of 2009, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner/CBI, Hyderabad, under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., seeking further extension of police custody of the respondents for a period of nine days was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/CBI arrested the respondents/accused on 05.09.2011 at Bellari in connection with the investigation of CBI case in RC.17 (A)/2009 and produced them before the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. Along with the remand report, the petitioner filed a petition being Crl.M.P.No.1931 of 2011 on the same day seeking CBI custody of the respondents for a period of 15 days, whereas the respondents filed Crl.M.P.Nos.1946 and 1947 of 2011 respectively for grant of bail. The Special Judge, by common order dated 13.09.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1931, 1946 and 1947 of 2011, granted CBI custody of the respondents from 13.09.2011 to 19.09.2011 (6 days) with a direction to produce the respondents in the Court on 19.09.2011 at 10.30 a.m. and the two bail applications filed by respondents were dismissed. In pursuance of the said order dated 13.09.2011, the respondents were taken into petitioner’s custody on 13.09.2011 for custodial interrogation. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present petition being Crl.M.P.No.2001 of 2011 seeking extension of police custody of the respondents for a further period of 9 days. However, the Special Judge was pleased to dismiss the said petition by impugned order dated 30.09.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. Heard. The case of the petitioner/CBI is that during the course of interrogation, it came to light that the respondents and their company M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited (OMC) invested amounts in M/s. Brahmani Industries Limited; that exports were made by the respondents to benami companies at a rate much less than the prevalent market rates and these amounts came back in the form of other investments made by certain benami companies; that some of the key associates of the accused were served with notices, but they refused to co-operate with the investigation; the accused did not cooperate with the investigating agency and did not reveal the places from where they brought the same; that the accused influenced public servants in getting lease in an area of 68.50 hectors; that one late Linga Reddy, the then Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Anantapur, and some more public servants helped the accused in filing applications for mining lease and also in getting the permits from the office of authorities concerned for shifting excavated iron ore; that during the course of the accused being in custody of the petitioner/CBI, the police, Guntakal, recovered five crores which was supposed to have been given on behalf of A-1 to some truck driver going to Hyderabad from Bellary for the purpose of delivering the same to some unknown persons at Hyderabad; that when two lockers belonging to A-1 and his wife and also another locker in the name of Rajesh Kumar Reddy were got opened, cash of two crores and gold ornaments worth 10 kgs., were found and the source of those items are yet to be known and that the whereabouts of some of the close associates of the accused are to be ascertained, hence, further grant of custodial interrogation of the accused for nine more days is very much required. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order. Admittedly, the CBI filed the present petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No.2001 of 2011 after a lapse of the period of first fifteen days of remand. It is settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Central Bureau of investigation, Special investigation cell 1, New Delhi vs. Anupam J.Kulkarni[1]; Devender Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana and others[2]; and Budh Singh vs. State of Punjab[3] that no police custody can be given beyond the first period of fifteen days of remand, and the same was even observed by the Court below. Thus, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in this Criminal Revision Case. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 19.12.2011 v v [1] 1992 (3) SCC 141 [2] (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 753 [3] 2000(9) SCC 266