1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11722 of 2011 & 11723 of 2011 State represented by The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Crime No. 187 of 2011 ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.P's Versus Anitha R.Rathakrishnan(A6) ... Respondent in both Crl.O.P's COMMON PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.6516 of 2011 & 6515 of 2011, respectively, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur and set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.6516 of 2011 & 6515 of 2011, respectively, dated 29.08.2011 and permit the petitioner to take the custody of the respondent/accused No.6 custodial interrogation for 3 days. For Petitioner in both Petitions : Mr.Ramachandran Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) For Respondent in both Petitions : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ravi COMMON ORDER Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (crl.side) appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has come forward with this application, to set aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur in Cr.M.P.Nos.6516 and 6515 of 2011 respectively, in granting police custody for 3 hours and 6 hours respectively. 3. Challenging the order, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the respondent was arrayed as an accused in two criminal cases. He would further submit that he was produced under P.T. warrant and remanded to judicial custody on 20th August 2011. The petition for police custody has been ordered on 29.08.2011. The learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing both sides has ordered 3 hours police custody in one case and 6 hours in another case. Challenging the order, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the time granted by the Judicial Magistrate are not sufficient for custodial interrogation. Hence, he filed the present application. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since along with other offence, 120(b) I.P.C. is also there and hence, custodial interrogation is necessary and that factum has not been considered by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Court below. Hence, he wants the police custody. 5. Reputing the same, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the petition has now become infructuous, because, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.08.2011 and 15 days time has already been over on 04.09.2011. So, granting of police custody will not arise as per the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1992(3) SCC 141 (Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Vs. Anupam J.Kulkarni) and 2010(3) SCC (Cri.) 223 (Devendar Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana and others) and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, this Court has already decided in another case in Crl.O.P.No.10350 of 2011, which was dealt with by me that the police custody will be given within 15 days and granting of police custody after the expiry of the initial period of 15 days will not arise. 7. It is pertinent to note the decision of the Apex Court, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, reported in 1992(3) SCC 141 (Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Vs. Anupam J.Kulkarni), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: "13. ...After the expiry of the first period of 15 days the further remand during the period of investigation can only be in judicial custody. There cannot be any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first fifteen days even in a case where some more offences either serious or otherwise committed by him in the same transaction come to light at a later stage. But this bar does not apply if the same arrested accused is involved in a different case arising out of a different transaction. Even if he is in judicial custody in connected with the investigation of the earlier case he can formally be arrested regarding his involvement in the different case and associate him with the investigation of that other case and the Magistrate can act as provided under Section 167 (2) and the proviso and can remand him to such custody as mentioned therein during the first period of fifteen days and thereafter in accordance with the proviso as discussed above. If the investigation is not completed within the period of ninety days or sixty days then the accused has to be released on bail as provided under the proviso to Section 167(2). The period of ninety days or sixty days has to be computed from the date of detention as per the orders of the Magistrate and not from the date of arrest by the Police. Consequently the first period of fifteen days mentioned in Section 167(2) has to be computed from the date of such detention and after the expiry of the period of fifteen days it should be only judicial custody." and this has been followed in 2010(3) SCC (Cri.)223 (Devender Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana and others). 8. Considering the judgments of the Apex Court, the respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.08.2011 and that the period of first 15 days of custody has been expired on 04.09.2011, I am of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 view that this application has become infructuous since the 15 days time has been expired on 04.09.2011. Since the petition itself has become infructuous, there is no need to analyse the order of the Trial Court. Even the petition itself was filed in time as per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, there cannot be any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first 15 days. Hence, the Criminal original petitions are dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR ps To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur. 2.Do Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi. 3.The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO MR. S. RAVI, ADVOCATE, SR: 30845: DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:14:: Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11722 of 2011 & 11723 of 2011 08.09.2011 3P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/