{"id":196555,"date":"1992-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992"},"modified":"2018-04-12T02:26:43","modified_gmt":"2018-04-11T20:56:43","slug":"central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992","title":{"rendered":"Central Bureau Of Investigation, … vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Central Bureau Of Investigation, … vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1768, \t\t 1992 SCR (3) 158<\/div>\n
Author: K J Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIALINVESTIGATION CELL-I\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nANUPAM J. KULKARNI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/05\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR 1768\t\t  1992 SCR  (3) 158\n 1992 SCC  (3) 141\t  JT 1992 (3)\t366\n 1992 SCALE  (1)1024\n\n\nACT:\n     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section, 167(1)-Person\narrested  and  produced before Magistrate-Remand  to  police\ncustody after initial period of 15 days-Whether legal.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     A case relating to abduction of four diamond  merchants\nand one K was registered at Police Station on 16.9.91.\t The\ninvestigation was entrusted to C.B.I.  During  investigation\nit was disclosed that between 14th  and 15th September 1991,\nthe four diamond merchants, K and one driver were  kidnapped\nfrom two hotels, and that K was one of the associates of the\naccused, responsible for the kidnapping.\n     On\t 4.10.91 K was arrested and was produced before\t the\nChief  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  on  5.10.91  and  he\t was\nremanded to judicial custody till 11.10.91.\n     On\t 10.10.91 a test identification parade was  arranged\nbut  K refused to cooperate and his refusal was recorded  by\nthe concerned Magistrate.\n     On\t  11.10.91  the\t investigating\tofficer\t  moved\t  an\napplication, seeking police custody of K, which was allowed.\n     When  he was being taken on the way K pretended  to  be\nindisposed and he was taken to a Hospital, where he remained\nconfined on the ground of illness upto 21.10.91 and then  he\nwas  referred  to  Cardiac  Out-patient\t Department  of\t the\nHospital.   K was again remanded to judicial custody by\t the\nMagistrate upto 29.10.91 and thereafter he was sent to Jail.\n     As\t the Police could not take him into  police  custody\nall  these days the investigating officer again\t applied  to\nthe  court  of\tChief  Metropolitan  Magistrate\t for  police\ncustody of K.\n     The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relying on a judgment\nin State\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       159\n(Delhi\tAdmn.) v. Dharam Pal and others, 1982 Crl.  L.J.1103\nrefused police remand.\n     A revision was filed before the High Court against\t the\norder of the Magistrate.\n     The High Court, without deciding the question,  whether\nor  not after the expiry of the initial period of 15 days  a\nperson\tcould  still be remanded to police  custody  by\t the\nMagistrate before whom he was produced, granted K bail.\n     In\t these appeals, the C.B.I. challenged the  order  of\nthe  High  Court,  contending that  the\t Chief\tMetropolitan\nMagistrate  erred  in not granting police custody  and\tthat\nDharam\tPal's case on which he placed reliance\twas  wrongly\ndecided;  that\tthe High Court erred in granting bail  to  K\nwithout deciding the question whether he can be remanded  to\npolice\tcustody; that a combined reading of  Section  167(2)\nand the proviso therein would make it clear that if for\t any\nreason\tthe police custody could not be obtained during\t the\nperiod\tof  first fifteen days yet a remand  to\t the  police\ncustody even later was not precluded.\n     The   respondent-accused  submitted  that\tthe   police\ncustody if at all be granted by the Magistrate u\/s. 167\t Cr.\nP.C. should be only during the period of first 15 days\tfrom\nthe date of production of the accused before the  Magistrate\nand not later and that subsequent custody if any should only\nbe  judicial  custody and the question\tof  granting  police\ncustody\t after\tthe expiry of first 15 days remand  did\t not\narise.\n     On the question, whether a person arrested and produced\nbefore\tthe  nearest Magistrate as  required  under  Section\n167(1) Code of Criminal Procedure could still be remanded to\npolice custody after the expiry of the initial period of  15\ndays, this Court dismissing the appeals of the C.B.I.,\n     HELD : 1.01. Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India\nand Section 57 of Cr. P.C. give a mandate that every  person\nwho  is\t arrested and detained in police  custody  shall  be\nproduced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24\nhours  of such arrest excluding the time necessary  for\t the\njourney\t from  the place of the arrest to the court  of\t the\nmagistrate  and\t no  such person shall be  detained  in\t the\ncustody\t beyond the said period without the authority  of  a\nmagistrate.  These two provisions clearly\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       160\nmanifest  the  intention  of  the law  in  this\t regard\t and\ntherefore  it  is  the\tmagistrate  who\t has  to  judicially\nscrutinise  circumstances  and if satisfied  can  order\t the\ndetention of the accused in  police custody.  [175 C]\n     1.02.  The\t detention in police  custody  is  generally\ndisfavoured  by\t law.  The provisions of law lay  down\tthat\nsuch detention can be allowed only in special  circumstances\nand that can be only by a remand granted by a magistrate for\nreasons judicially scrutinised and for such limited purposes\nas  the necessities of the case may require. The  scheme  of\nSection\t 167  is  obvious and is  intended  to\tprotect\t the\naccused\t from  the  methods which may  be  adopted  by\tsome\noverzealous and unscrupulous police officers.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    [175 B]\n     1.03. Whenever any person is arrested under Section  54\nCr.P.C. he should be produced before the nearest  Magistrate\nwithin\t24 hours as mentioned therein.\tSuch Magistrate\t may\nor  may not have jurisdiction to try the case.\tIf  Judicial\nMagistrate is not available, the police officer may transmit\nthe arrested accused to the nearest Executive Magistrate  on\nwhom the judicial powers have been conferred. [178 D]\n     1.04. The Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance\nauthorise the detention of the accused in such custody\ti.e.\neither\tpolice or judicial from time to time but  the  total\nperiod of detention cannot exceed fifteen days in the whole.\nWithin\tthis period of fifteen days there can be  more\tthan\none  order changing the nature of such custody\teither\tfrom\npolice to judicial or vice-versa. [178 E]\n     1.05.  If the arrested accused is produced\t before\t the\nExecutive  Magistrate  he  is  empowered  to  authorise\t the\ndetention in such custody either police or judicial only for\na week, in the same manner namely by one or more orders\t but\nafter  one  week  he should transmit   him  to\tthe  nearest\nJudicial Magistrate along with the records. [178 F]\n     1.06. When\t the arrested accused is so transmitted\t the\nJudicial  Magistrate, for the remaining period, that  is  to\nsay  excluding one week or the number of days  of  detention\nordered\t by the Executive Magistrate, may authorise  further\ndetention  within that period of first fifteen days to\tsuch\ncustody either police or judicial.  After the expiry of\t the\nfirst  period of fifteen days the further remand during\t the\nperiod\tof  investigation can only be in  judicial  custody.\n[178 G]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    161\n     1.07.  There  cannot  be any detention  in\t the  police\ncustody\t after\tthe expiry of first fifteen days even  in  a\ncase  where some more offences either serious  or  otherwise\ncommitted by him in  the same transaction come to light at a\nlater stage.[178.H]\n     1.08. But this bar does not apply if the same  arrested\naccused\t is  involved in a different case arising out  of  a\ndifferent  transaction. Even if he is in judicial custody in\nconnection with the investigation of the earlier case he can\nformally  be  arrested regarding his  involvement  in  the\ndifferent  case and associate him with the investigation  of\nthat other case and the Magistrate can act as provided under\nSection\t 167(2)\t  and the proviso    and can remand  him  to\nsuch   custody as mentioned therein during the first  period\nof  fifteen days thereafter in accordance with the  proviso.\n[179 A]\n1.09.If\t the  investigation is not  completed  within  the\nperiod of ninety days or sixty days then the accused has  to\nbe released on bail as provided under the proviso to Section\n167(2).\t The period of ninety days or sixty days has to\t be\ncomputed from the date of detention as per the orders of the\nMagistrate  and not from the date of arrest by the  police.\n[179 C]\n     1.10.  The\t first period of fifteen days  mentioned  in\nSection\t 167(2)\t has to be computed from the  date  of\tsuch\ndetention  and\tafter  the expiry of  the  period  of  first\nfifteen days it should be only judicial custody. [179C]\n     State  (Delhi Admn.) v.  Dharam Pal  and  Others,<\/a>\t1982\nCrl. L.J. 103, approved partially.\n     S.\t Harsimran  Singh  v. State  of\t Punjab,  1984\tCrl.\nL.J.253, approved.\n     Gian  Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), 1981\tCrl.\nL.J.\t100;   Trilochan   Singh   v.\tThe   State   (Delhi\nAdminitration),\t 1981 Crl. L.J.1773; State  v. Mehar  Chand,\n1969  D.L.T. 179; State (Delhi Administration)\tv.  Ravinder\nKumar  Bhatnagar,<\/a>  1982 Crl. L.J. 2366; State of  Kerala  v.\nSadanadan,  19184  K.L.T.  747; Chaganti  Satyanarayana\t and\nOthers\tv. State of Andhra Pradesh,<\/a> [1966] 3 S.C.c. 141\t and\nNatabar\t Parida and Others v. State of Orissa,<\/a> [1975] 2\t SCC\n220, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal\tNos.
\n310-311 of 1992.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the Judgment and Order dated\t  9.12.1991  of\t the
\nDelhi High
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     162<\/span>
\nCourt  in Crl.M.(M) no. 2409\/91 and Crl. R. no. 201 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     K.T.S.Tulsi,  Addl. Solicitor General,  Kailash  Vasdev
\nand Ms.\t Alpana Kirpal for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Ram  Jethmalani, Dinesh Mathur and Ms. Binu  Tamta\t for
\nthe Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was deliverd by
\n     k.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. Leave  granted.\n<\/p>\n
     An important question that arises for consideration  is
\nwhether\t a  person arrested and produced before the  nearest
\nMagistrate as required under Section 167(1) Code of Criminal
\nProcedure can still be remanded to police custody after\t the
\nexpiry\tof  the initial period of 15 days.   We\t propose  to
\nconsider  the issue elaborately as there is no\tjudgment  of
\nthis  Court  on this point.  The facts giving rise  to\tthis
\nquestion  may  briefly\tbe  stated.   A\t case  relating\t  to
\nabduction  of  four Bombay based diamond merchants  and\t one
\nShri Kulkarni was registered at Police Station Tughlak\tRoad
\nNew Delhi on 16.9.91 and the investigation was entrusted  to
\nC.B.I.\tDuring investigation it was disclosed that not\tonly
\nthe  four diamond merchants but also Shri Kulkarni,  who  is
\nthe  respondent\t before\t us  and  one  driver  Babulal\twere
\nkidnapped  between  14th and 15th September, 1991  from\t two
\nHotels\tat Delhi.  It emerged during investigation that\t the
\nsaid Shri Kulkarni was one of the associates of the  accused
\none Shri R.Chaudhary responsible  for the said kidnaping  of
\nthe  diamond  merchants.   On the basis\t of  some  available
\nmaterial  Shri\tKulkarni  was arrested on  4.10.91  and\t was
\nproduced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi  on
\n5.10.91.   On  the request of the C.B.I. Shri  Kulkarni\t was
\nremanded to  judicial custody till 11.10.91. On\t 10.10.91  a
\ntest  identification parade was arranged  but Shri  Kulkarni
\nrefused\t to  cooperate\tand  his  refusal  was\trecorded  by
\nconcerned Munsif Magistrate.  On 11.10.91 an application was
\nmoved by the investigating officer seeking police custody of
\nShri Kulkarni which was allowed.  When he was being taken on
\nthe way Shri Kulkarni pretended to be indisposed and he\t was
\ntaken  to  the Hospital the same evening where\the  remained
\nconfined  on the ground of illness up 21.10.91 and  then  he
\nwas  referred to cardic Out-patient Department of G.B.\tPant
\nHospital.  Upto 29.10.91 Shri Kulkarni was again remanded to
\njudicial  custody by the Magistrate and thereafter was\tsent
\nto   Jail.    In   view\t of  the  fact\t that\tthe   Police
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   163<\/span>
\ncould  not take him into police custody all these  days\t the
\ninvestigating  officer again applied  to the court of  Chief
\nMetropolitan   Magistrate  for\t police\t custody   of\tShri
\nKulkarni.   The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relying  on  a
\njudgment  of the Delhi High Court in State (Delhi Admn.)  v.
\nDharam\tPal and others<\/a>, 1982 Crl. L.J. 1103  refused  police
\nremand.\t  Questioning the same a revision was  filed  before
\nthe  High Court of Delhi.  The learned Single  Judge in\t the
\nfirst instance considered whether there was material to make
\nout  a case of kidnaping or abduction against Shri  Kulkarni
\nand observed that even the abducted  persons namely the four
\ndiamond\t merchants do not point an accusing  finger  against
\nShri  Kulkarni\tand  that  at  any\trate  Shri  Kulkarni
\nhimself has been interrogated  in jail for almost seven days
\nby  the\t  C.B.I.  and  nothing has  been  divulged  by\thim,
\ntherefore it is not desirable to confine him in jail and  in
\nthat  view  of\tthe matter he granted him  bail.   The\tHigh
\nCourt,\thowever, did not decide the question whether or\t not
\nafter  the expiry of the initial period of 15 days a  person
\ncan  still be remanded to police custody by  the  magistrate
\nbefore\twhom he was produced.  The said order is  challenged
\nin these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing\t for
\nthe  C.B.I. the appellant contended that Chief\tMatropolitan
\nMagistrate  erred  in not granting police custody  and\tthat
\nDharam\tPal’s  case  on which he placed\t reliance  has\tbeen
\nwrongly\t decided.  The further\tcontention is that the\tHigh
\nCourt  has erred in granting bail to Shri  Kulkarni  without
\ndeciding  the question whether he can be remanded to  police
\ncustody as prayed for by C.B.I. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned
\ncounsel\t for the respondent accused submitted that  language
\nof Section  167 Cr.P.C. is clear and that the police custody
\nif  at\tall  be granted by the\tMagistrate  should  be\tonly
\nduring\tthe  period  of\t first\t15 days\t from  the  date  of
\nproduction  of\tthe accused before the\tmagistrate  and\t not
\nlater  and that subsequent custody if any should    only  be
\njudicial   custody  and\t the  question\tof  granting  police
\ncustody\t after the expiry of first 15 days remand  does\t not
\narise.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 167 Cr. P.C. 11973 after some changes reads  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t “167.\t Procedure  when  investigation\t cannot\t  be
\n\t completed  in twenty-four hours.- (1) Whenever\t any
\n\t person\t is arrested and detained in custody, and it
\n\t appears   that\t  the\tinvestigation\tcannot\t  be
\n\t completed  within the period of  twenty-four  hours
\n\t fixed\tby Section   57, and there are\tgrounds\t for
\n\t believing that the accusation
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   164<\/span>
\n\t or  information is well founded,  the\tofficer-in-
\n\t charge of the police station or the police  officer
\n\t making\t the investigation, he if is not  below\t the
\n\t rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit  to
\n\t the  nearest  Judicial Magistrate a  copy   of\t the
\n\t entries   in  the  diary   hereinafter\t  prescribed
\n\t relating  to the case, and shall at the  same\ttime
\n\t forward the accused to such Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
\t (2)  The  Magistrate to whom an accused  person  is
\n\t forwarded under this section may, whether he has or
\n\t has not jurisdiction to try  the case, from time to
\n\t time,\tauthorise  the detention of the\t accused  in
\n\t such  custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for  a
\n\t term  not exceeding fifteen days in the whole;\t and
\n\t if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit
\n\t it  for  trial,  and  considers  further  detention
\n\t unnecessary,\the  may\t order\tthe  accused  to  be
\n\t forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
\n\t Provided that-\n<\/p>\n
\t (a) the Magistrate may\t authorise the detention  of
\n\t the  accused person, otherwise than in the  custody
\n\t of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days if
\n\t he  is\t satisfied that adequate grounds  exist\t for
\n\t doing\tso,  but no Magistrate shall  authorise\t the
\n\t detention  of the accused person in  custody  under
\n\t this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-\n<\/p>\n
\t (i)  ninety days, where the investigation   relates
\n\t to  an office punishable with\tdeath,\timprisonment
\n\t for  life  or imprisonment for a term\tof  not less
\n\t than ten years;\n<\/p>\n
\t (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to
\n\t any other office,
\n\t and,  on  the expiry of the said period  of  ninety
\n\t days,\tor  sixty  days,  as the case  may  be,\t the
\n\t accused  person shall be released on bail if he  is
\n\t prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person
\n\t released  on bail under this sub-section  shall  be
\n\t deemed\t to be so released under the  provisions  of
\n\t Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;\n<\/p>\n
\t (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in\t any
\n\t custody  under this section unless the\t accused  is
\n\t produced before him;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t     165<\/span><\/p>\n
\t (c)no Magistrate of the second class, not specially
\n\t empowered  in this behalf by the High Court,  shall
\n\t authorise detention in the custody of police.
\n\t  Explanation 1- For the avoidance of doubts, it  is
\n\t hereby\t declared that, notwithstanding the  expiry
\n\t of  the   period  specified in\t paragrah  (a),\t the
\n\t accused shall be  so detained in custody so long as
\n\t he does not furnish bail.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Explanation II.- If any question arises whether an
\n\t accused  person was produced before the  Magistrate
\n\t as required under paragraph (b), the production  of
\n\t the  accused person may be proved by his  signature
\n\t on the order authorising  detention.\n<\/p>\n
\t (2A)  Notwithstanding\tanything contained  in\tsub-
\n\t section  (1)  or sub-section (2),  the\t officer-in-
\n\t charge of the police station or the police officer
\n\t making\t the investigation, if he is not  below\t the
\n\t rank  of  a sub-inspector, may,  where\t a  judicial
\n\t Magistrate  is\t not  available,  transmit  to\t the
\n\t nearest  Executive Magistrate, on whom the  powers
\n\t of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate
\n\t have  been  conferred a copy of the  entry  in\t the
\n\t diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the  case,
\n\t and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to
\n\t such  Executive  Magistrate,  and  thereupon\tsuch
\n\t Executive  Magistrate\tmay,   for   reason  to\t  be
\n\t recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the
\n\t accused person in such custody, as he may think for
\n\t a   term   not\t exceeding   seven   days   in\t the
\n\t aggregate,  and,  on the expiry of the\t  period  of
\n\t the  detention\t so authorised, the  accused  person
\n\t shall be released on bail except where an order for
\n\t further  detention of the accused person  has\tbeen
\n\t made by a Magistrate competent to make such  order;
\n\t and,  where an order for such further detention  is
\n\t made,\tthe period during which the  accused  person
\n\t was detained in custody under the orders made by an
\n\t Executive Magistrate under this sub-section,  shall
\n\t be  taken  into  account in  computing\t the  period
\n\t specified  in paragrah 2(a) of the proviso to\tsub-
\n\t section (2);\n<\/p>\n
\t Provided  that\t before the  expiry of\tthe  period
\n\t aforesaid, the\t Executive magistrate shall transmit
\n\t to the nearest Judicial  Magistrate the records  of
\n\t the case together with a copy\tof the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      166<\/span>
\n\t entries  in the diary\trelating to the\t case  which
\n\t was transmitted to him by the officer-in-charge  of
\n\t the  police  station or the police  officer  making
\n\t the investigation, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
\t (3)  A Magistrate  authorising\t under this  section
\n\t detention in the custody of the police shall record
\n\t his reasons for so doing.\n<\/p>\n
\t (4) Any Magistrate  other than the Chief   Judicial
\n\t Magistrate  making such order shall forward a\tcopy
\n\t of  his order, with his reasons for making  it,  to
\n\t the Chief Judicial Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
\t (5)  If  any  case triable by\ta  Magistrate  as  a
\n\t summons-case,\tthe investigation is  not  concluded
\n\t within\t a  period  of six months from the  date  on
\n\t which\tthe  accused was  arrested,  the  Magistrate
\n\t shall make an order stopping further  investigation
\n\t into  the  offence unless the officer\t making\t the
\n\t investigation\t satisfies the Magistrate  that\t for
\n\t special  reasons  and in the interests\t of  justice
\n\t the  continuation of the investigation\t beyond\t the
\n\t period of six months is necessary.\n<\/p>\n
\t (6) Where  any order stopping further investigation
\n\t into  an  offence has been made  under\t sub-section
\n\t (5), the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on
\n\t an  application  made to him,\tor  otherwise,\tthat
\n\t further investigation into the offence ought to  be
\n\t made,\tvacate the order made under sub-section\t (5)
\n\t and  direct further investigation to be  made\tinto
\n\t the offence subject to such directions with  regard
\n\t to bail and other matters as he may specify.”
\n     Before  proceeding\t further  it may  be   necessary  to
\nadvert to the legislative history of this Section.  The\t old
\nSection\t  167 of 1898 Code provided for the detention of  an
\naccused in custody for a term not exceeding  15 days on\t the
\nwhole.\t It  was  noted that this was honored  more  in\t the
\nbreach\tthan  in  the  observance and  that  a\tpractice  of
\ndoubtful legality grew up namely the police  used to file an
\nincomplete charge-sheet and move the court for remand  under
\nSection\t 344 corresponding to the present Section 309  which
\nwas  not meant for during investigation.  Having  regard  to
\nthe fact that there may be genuine cases where investigation
\nmight  not be completed in 15 days, the Law Commission\tmade
\ncertain recommendations to confer power on the Magistrate to
\nextend the period of 15\t days  detention.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       167<\/span><\/p>\n
     These  recommendations are noticed in the\tobjects\t and
\nreasons of the Bill thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t “………At\tpresent,  Section  167\tenables\t the
\n\t Magistrate  to authorise detention of\tan  accused
\n\t in custody for a term not exceeding 15 days on\t the
\n\t whole.\t There is a complaint that this provision is
\n\t honored  more in the breach than in the  observance
\n\t and  that  the\t police investigation takes  a\tmuch
\n\t longer\t period in practice. A practice of  doubtful
\n\t legality  has\tgrown  whereby\tthe  police  file  a
\n\t “preliminary”\tor incomplete chargesheet  and\tmove
\n\t the  court for remand under Section 344   which  is
\n\t not   intended\t  to   apply   to   the\t  stage\t  of
\n\t investigation.\t  While in some cases the  delay  in
\n\t investigation\tmay  be\t due to\t the  fault  of\t the
\n\t police,  it  cannot  be denied that  there  may  be
\n\t genuine  cases where it may not  be practicable  to
\n\t complete  the\tinvestigation\tin  15\t days.\t The
\n\t Commission  recommended that the  period should  be
\n\t extended  to 60 days, but if this is done, 60\tdays
\n\t would\tbecome\tthe rule and there is  no  guarantee
\n\t that  the illegal practice referred to above  would
\n\t not  continue.\t  It  is considered  that  the\tmost
\n\t satisfactory  solution of the problem\t       would
\n\t be to confer on the Magistrate the\t    power to
\n\t extend\t the  period of extension  beyond  15  days,
\n\t whenever  he  is satisfied  that  adequate  grounds
\n\t exist for granting such extension…….”
\n     The Joint\tCommittee, however, with a view to have\t the
\ndesired\t effect\t made  provision for the  release    of\t the
\naccused if investigation is not duly completed in case where
\naccused\t has been  in custody for some period.\t Sub-section
\n(5) and (6) relating to offences punishable for imprisonment
\nfor   two  years  were\tinserted  and  the  Magistrate\t was
\nauthorised  to stop further investigation and discharge\t the
\naccused if the investigation could not be completed   within
\nsix months.  By the Cr. P.C. Amendment Act 1978 proviso\t (a)
\nto  sub-section (2) of Section 167 has been further  amended
\nand  the Magistrate is empowered to authorise the  detention
\nof  accused in custody during investigation for an aggregate
\nperiod of 90 days in cases relating to major offences and in
\nother cases 60 days.  This provision for custody for 90 days
\nin  intended to remove difficulties which actually arise  in
\ncompletion  of\tthe  investigation of  offences\t of  serious
\nnature.\t  A  new  sub-section (2A) also\t has  been  inserted
\nempowering the Executive
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   168<\/span>
\nMagistrate  to\tmake  an order for remand  but\tonly  for  a
\nperiod\tnot  exceeding seven days in the  aggregate  and  in
\ncases  where   Judicial Magistrate is not  available.\tThis
\nprovision   further  lays  down\t that  period  of  detention
\nordered\t by such Executive Magistrate should  be taken\tinto
\naccount\t in computing the total period specified  in  clause\n<\/p>\n
(a)  of sub-section (2) of Section 167.\t Now coming  to\t the
\nobject\tand scope of Section 167 it is well-settled that  it
\nis supplementary to Section 57.\t It is clear from Section 57
\nthat  the  investigation should be completed  in  the  first
\ninstance within 24 hours if not, the arrested person  should
\nbe  brought  by the police before a magistrate\tas  provided
\nunder  Section\t167.  The law does not\tauthorise  a  police
\nofficer to detain an arrested person for more than 24  hours
\nexclusive  of  the time necessary for the journey  from\t the
\nplace of arrest to the magistrate court. Sub-section (1)  of
\nSection\t 167 covers all this procedure and  also  lays\tdown
\nthat the police\t officer while forwarding the accused to the
\nnearest\t magistrate  should  also transmit  a  copy  of\t the
\nentries\t in the diary relating to the case. The\t entries  in
\nthe  diary   are  meant to afford  to  the   magistrate\t the
\nnecessary  information upon which he can take  the  decision
\nwhether\t the  accused  should be  detained  in\tthe  custody
\nfurther\t or  not.  It may  be noted even at this  stage\t the
\nmagistrate  can\t release him on bail if an   application  is
\nmade  and  if he is satisfied that there are no\t grounds  to
\nremand him to custody but if he is satisfied   that  further
\nremand\tis  necessary then he should act as  provided  under
\nSection\t 167.\tIt is at this  stage sub-section  (2)  comes
\ninto operation which is very much  relevant for our purpose.
\nIt lays down that the magistrate to whom the accused  person
\nis   thus  forwarded  may,  whether  he\t has  or   has\t not
\njurisdiction to try the case, from  time to time,  authorise
\nthe  detention of the accused in such custody as  he  thinks
\nfit for a term not exceeding  fifteen days in the whole.  If
\nsuch  magistrate  has no jurisdiction to try  the  case\t  or
\ncommit\tit for trial and if he considers  further  detention
\nunnecessary,  he may order the accused to be forwarded to  a
\nmagistrate  having  such jurisdiction.\tThe Section is clear
\nin  its\t terms.\t  The  magistrate  under  this\tSection\t can
\nauthorise the detention of the accused in such custody as he
\nthinks\tfit  but it should not exceed fifteen  days  in\t the
\nwhole.\tTherefore the custody  initially should\t not  exceed
\nfifteen\t days  in  the whole.  The  custody  can  be  police
\ncustody\t or judicial custody as the magistrate\tthinks\tfit.
\nThe  words  “such  custody” and “for a\tterm  not  exceeding
\nfifteen days in the whole” are very significant.  It is also
\nwell-settled  now  that the period of  fifteen\tdays  starts
\nrunning as soon as the accused is produced before the
\nMagistrate.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  169<\/span><\/p>\n
     Now  comes the proviso inserted by Act No. 45  of\t1978
\nwhich is of vital importance in deciding the question before
\nus.  This proviso comes into operation where the  magistrate
\nthinks\tfit  that  further detention beyond  the  period  of
\nfifteen\t days  is  necessary  and  it  lays  down  that\t the
\nmagistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person
\notherwise  than\t in  the custody of the\t police\t beyond\t the
\nperiod\t of fifteen days. The words `otherwise than  in\t the
\ncustody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days’ are
\nagain very significant.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for
\nthe  C.B.I.,  contended that a combined reading\t of  Section
\n167(2)\tand the proviso therein would make it clear that  if
\nfor any reason the police custody cannot be obtained  during
\nthe period of first fifteen days yet a remand to the  police
\ncustody\t even  later is not precluded and what all  that  is
\nrequired is that such police custody in the whole should not
\nexceed\tfifteen days. According to him there could be  cases
\nwhere  a  remand to police custody would  become  absolutely
\nnecessary  at a later stage even though such an\t accused  is
\nunder  judicial custody as per the orders of the  magistrate
\npassed\tunder the proviso. The learned Additional  Solicitor
\nGeneral\t gave some instances like holding an  identification
\nparade\tor  interrogation on the basis of the  new  material
\ndiscovered during the investigation. He also submitted\tthat
\nsome  of the judgments of the High Courts particularly\tthat
\nof   the  Delhi\t High  Court  relied  upon  by\t the   Chief
\nMetropolitan Magistrate do not lay down the correct position
\nof  law\t in  this  regard. In Gian  Singh  v.  State  (Delhi
\nAdministaration), 1981 Cr.L.J. 100 a learned Single Judge of
\nthe  High  Court held that once the accused is\tremanded  to
\njudicial  custody  he cannot be sent back  again  to  police
\ncustody\t in connection with or in continuation of  the\tsame
\ninvestigation  even though the first period of fifteen\tdays
\nhas  not  exhausted. Again the same  learned  Judge  Justice
\nM.L.Jain   in\tTrilochan   Singh  v.\tThe   State   (Delhi
\nAdministration), 1981 Crl.L.J. 1773 took the  same view.  In
\nState (Delhi Administration) v. Dharam Pal and others<\/a>,\t1982
\nCr.L.J.\t 1103  a  Division Bench of  the  Delhi\t High  Court
\noverruled  the\tlearned Single Judge’s\tcase  and  Trilochan
\nSingh’s\t case. The Divison Bench held that the\twords  ~from
\ntime  to  time” occurring in the Section show  that  several
\norders\tcan  be\t passed under Section 167(2)  and  that\t the
\nnature\tof the custody can be altered from judicial  custody
\nto police custody and vice-versa during the first period  of
\nfifteen\t days mentioned\t in Section 167(2) of the  Code\t and
\nthat  after fifteen days the accused could only be  kept  in
\njudicial custody or any other custody as ordered by
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       170<\/span>
\nthe  magistrate\t but not in the custody of  the\t police.  In
\narriving  at  this  conclusion\tthe  Division  Bench  sought
\nsupport on an earlier decision in State v. Mehar Chand, 1969
\nDelhi  Law  Times  179. In that case the  accused  had\tbeen
\narrested  for an offence of kidnapping and after the  expiry
\nof  the\t first\tperiod of fifteen days the  accused  was  in
\njudicial  custody  under Section 344 Cr.P.C.(old  code).  At
\nthat stage the police found on investigation that an offence
\nof  murder  also was prima facie made out against  the\tsaid
\naccused.  Then the question arose whether the  said  accused
\nwho  was in judicial custody should  be sent to\t the  police
\ncustody\t  on  the basis of the discovery that there  was  an
\naggravated  offence.  The magistrate refused to\t permit\t the
\naccused to be put in police custody. The same was questioned
\nbefore the High Court. Hardy, J. held that an accused who is
\nin  magisterial\t custody in one case can be  allowed  to  be
\nremanded  to  police custody in other case and on  the\tsame
\nrule  he can be remanded to police custody at  a  subsequent
\nstage of investigation in the same case when the information
\ndiscloses  his complicity in more serious offences and\tthat
\non  principle,there is no difference at all between the\t two
\ntypes of cases. The learned Judge further stated as under:
\n\t “I see no insuperable difficulty in the way of\t the
\n\t police\t arresting the accused for the\tsecond\ttime
\n\t for the offence for which he is now wanted by them.
\n\t The  accused being  already in magisterial  custody
\n\t it  is\t open to the learned magistrate\t under\tSec.
\n\t 167(2) to take the accused out of jail or  judicial
\n\t custody  and  hand him over to the police  for\t the
\n\t maximum period of 15 days provided in that section.
\n\t All that he is required to do is to satisfy himself
\n\t that  a  good case is made out\t for  detaining\t the
\n\t accused  in  police  custody  in  connection\twith
\n\t investigation\t of  the case. It may  be  that\t the
\n\t offences for which the accused is now wanted by the
\n\t police\t relate\t to  the same  case  but  these\t are
\n\t altogether   different\t offences  and\tin   a\t way
\n\t therefore it is quite legitimate to say that it  is
\n\t a  different case in which the\t complicity  of\t the
\n\t accused has been discovered and police in order  to
\n\t complete  their investigation of that case  require
\n\t that  the accused should be associated\t  with\tthat
\n\t investigation in some way.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  Division Bench  in Dharam Pal’s case referring  to
\nthese observations of Hardy, J. observed that “We completely
\nagree with Hardy, J. in
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       171<\/span>
\ncoming to the conclusion that the Magistrate has to find out
\nwhether there is a good case for grant of police custody.” A
\nperusal\t of the later part of the judgment in  Dharam  Pal’s
\ncase  would show that the Division Bench referred  to  these
\nobservations  in support of the view that the nature of\t the
\ncustody\t can  be  altered from judicial\t custody  to  police
\ncustody\t or  vice-versa during the first period\t of  fifteen
\ndays  mentioned in Section 167(2) of the Code,\tbut  however
\nfirmly\tconcluded that after fifteen days the accused  could
\nonly be in judicial custody or any other custody as  ordered
\nby  the magistrate but not in police custody. Then there  is
\none  more decision of the Delhi High Court in  State  (Delhi
\nAdministration)\t v. Ravinder Kumar Bhatnagar,<\/a> 1982  Crl.L.J.
\n2366  where a Single Judge after relying on the judgment  of
\nthe  Division  Bench  in  Dharam Pal’s case  held  that\t the
\nlanguage  of Section 167(2) is plain and that words  “for  a
\nterm  not exceeding fifteen days in the whole” would clearly
\nindicate  that those fifteen days begin to  run\t immediately
\nafter  the  accused  is produced before\t the  magistrate  in
\naccordance  with  sub-section  (1) and\tthe  police  custody
\ncannot\tbe  granted after the lapse of\tthe  “first  fifteen
\ndays”. In State of Kerala v. Sadanadan, (1984) K.L.T.747,  a
\nSingle Judge of the Kerala High Court  held that the initial
\ndetention  of the accused by the magistrate can be only\t for
\nfifteen\t days  in  the whole and it  may  be  either  police
\ncustody\t or  judicial  custody and  during  the\t period\t the
\nmagistrate has jurisdiction to convert judicial custody\t  to
\npolice\tcustody and vice-versa and the maximum period  under
\nwhich  the accused can be so detained is only  fifteen\tdays
\nand that after the expiry of fifteen days the proviso  comes
\ninto operation which expressly refers to police custody\t and
\nenjoins\t that there shall be no police custody and  judicial
\ncustody alone is possible when power is exercised  under the
\nproviso.  The learned Single Judge stated that in  the\tcase
\nbefore\thim the accused has already been in  police  custody
\nfor fifteen days and therefore he could\t not be remanded  to
\npolice\tcustody\t either\t under Section 167  or\tSection\t 309
\nCr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that
\nthe  observations made by  Hardy, J. in Mehar  Chand’s\tcase
\nwould  indicate\t that during the investigation of  the\tsame
\ncase  in  which the accused is arrested and  is\t already  in
\ncustody\t if more offences committed in the same case come to
\nlight  there should be no  bar to turn over the\t accused  to
\npolice custody even after the first period  of fifteen\tdays
\nand  during  the  period of ninety days\t or  sixty  days  in
\nrespect\t of  the  investigation of the\tcases  mentioned  in
\nprovisos  (a)  (i) and (ii) respectively. It  may  be  noted
\nfirstly that the Mehar
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       172<\/span>
\nChand’s case was decided in respect of a case arising  under
\nthe  old Code. If we examine the background in enacting\t the
\nnew  Section 167(2) and the proviso (a) as well\t as  Section
\n309 of the  new Code it becomes clear that the\t legislature
\nrecognised  that such custody namely police, judicial or any
\nother  custody like detaining the  arrested person  in\tNari
\nSadans etc. should be in the whole for fifteen days and\t the
\nfurther\t custody under the proviso to  Section 167 or  under
\nSection\t  309\tshould\tonly  be   judicial.   In   Chaganti
\nSatyanarayana and others v.State of Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 3
\nS.C.C.141  this Court examined the scope  of Section  167(2)
\nprovisos (a)(i) and (ii) and held that the period of fifteen
\ndays,  ninety days or sixty days prescribed therein  are  to
\nbe  computed from the date of remand of the accused and\t not
\nfrom the date of his arrest under Section 57 and that remand
\nto  police  custody cannot be beyond the period\t of  fifteen
\ndays  and  the further remand must be to  judicial  custody.
\nThough the point that precisely arose before this Court\t was
\nwhether\t the period of remand prescribed should be  computed
\nfrom  the  date of remand or from the date of  arrest  under
\nSection\t 57,  there are certain observations  throwing\tsome
\nlight on the scope of the nature of custody after the expiry
\nof  the\t first remand of fifteen days and when\tthe  proviso
\ncomes into operation. It was observed thus
\n\t As  sub-section  (2)  of Section  167\tas  well  as
\n\t proviso  (1)  of sub -section (2)  of\tSection\t 309
\n\t relate\t to  the powers of remand of  a\t magistrate,
\n\t though\t  under\t  different  situations,   the\t two
\n\t provisions  call for a harmonious reading   insofar
\n\t as  the periods of remand are concerned. It  would,
\n\t therefore,  follow that the words “15 days  in\t the
\n\t whole “occurring in sub-section (2) of Section\t 167
\n\t would\tbe tantamount to a period of “15 days  at  a
\n\t time”\tbut  subject to the condition  that  if\t the
\n\t accused  is  to be remanded to police\tcustody\t the
\n\t remand should be for such period as is commensurate
\n\t with the requirements of a case with provision\t for
\n\t further  extensions for restricted periods,if\tneed
\n\t be,  but  in  no case should the  total  period  of
\n\t remand to  police custody exceed 15 days. Where  an
\n\t accused is placed in police custody for the maximum
\n\t period of 15 days allowed underlaw either  pursuant
\n\t to  a\tsingle order of remand or to more  than\t one
\n\t order,\t when  the  remand  is\trestricted  on\teach
\n\t occasion  to  a  lesser number of  days  ,  further
\n\t detention  of the accused, if warranted, has to  be
\n\t necessarily to judicial custody and not  otherwise.
\n\t The  legislature  having provided  for\t an  accused
\n\t being placed under
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       173<\/span>
\n\t police custody under orders of remand for effective
\n\t investigation\tof cases has at the same time  taken
\n\t care  to see that the interests of the accused\t are
\n\t not  jeopardised by his being placed  under  police
\n\t custody beyond a total period of 15 days, under any
\n\t circumstances,\t irrespective  of  the\tgravity\t  of
\n\t the offence or the serious nature of  the case.
\n     These observations make it clear that if an accused  is
\ndetained in police custody, the maximum period during  which
\nhe  can be kept in such custody is only fifteen days  either
\npursuant to a single order or more than one when such orders
\nare for lesser number of days but on the whole such  custody
\ncannot\tbe  beyond fifteen days and the\t further  remand  to
\nfacilitate the investigation can only be by detention of the
\naccused in judicial custody.\n<\/p>\n
     Having  regard  to the words “in such custody  as\tsuch
\nMagistrate thinks fit a term not exceeding fifteen days\t  in
\nthe  whole” occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 167\t now
\nthe question is whether it can be construed that the  police
\ncustody,  if  any,  should be within this  period  of  first
\nfifteen\t days  and not later or alternatively in a  case  if
\nsuch  remand had not been obtained or the number of days  of
\npolice\tcustody in the first fifteen days are  less  whether
\nthe police can ask subsequently for police custody for\tfull
\nperiod\tof  fifteen  days not availed  earlier\tor  for\t the
\nremaining days during the rest of the periods of ninety days
\nor  sixty  days\t covered by  the  proviso.    The  decisions
\nmentioned  above  do not deal with this\t question  precisely
\nexcept the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dharam  Pal’s
\ncase.\tTaking\t the  plain  language\tinto   consideration
\nparticularly the words “otherwise than in the custody of the
\npolice beyond the period of fifteen days” in the proviso  it
\nhas  to\t be held that the custody after the  expiry  of\t the
\nfirst  fifteen days can only be judicial custody during\t the
\nrest  of the periods of ninety days or sixty days  and\tthat
\npolice custody if found necessary of fifteen days.  To\tthis
\nextent\tthe  view  taken in Dharam  Pal’s  case\t is correct.\n<\/p>\n
     At\t this juncture we want to make another aspect  clear
\nnamely the computation of period of remand.  The proviso  to
\nSection\t 167(2) clearly lays down that the total  period  of
\ndetention  should not exceed ninety days in cases where\t the
\ninvestigation  relates to serious offences mentioned therein
\nand  sixty  days  in  other  cases  and\t if  by\t that\ttime
\ncongnizance is not
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 174<\/span>
\ntaken on the expiry of the said periods the accused shall be
\nreleased   on  bail  as\t mentioned  therein.   In   Chaganti
\nSatyanarayan’s\tcase it was held that “It, therefore, stands
\nto  reason that the total period of 90 days or 60  days\t can
\nbegin  to run from the date of order or remand.”   Therefore
\nthe  first period of detention should be computed  from\t the
\ndate  of order\tor remand.  Section 167(2A) which  has\tbeen
\nintroduced for\tpragmatic reasons states than if an arrested
\nperson\tis  produced  before and  Executive  Magistrate\t for
\nremand\tthe said Magistrate may authorise the  detention  of
\nthe  accused  not  exceeding seven days\t in  aggregate.\t  It
\nfurther provides that the period of remand by the  Executive
\nMagistrate  should also be taken into account for  computing
\nthe  period specified in the proviso i.e. aggregate  periods
\nof   ninety  days  or  sixty  days.   Since  the   Executive
\nMagistrate  is empowered to order detention only  for  seven
\ndays  in such custody as he thinks fit, he should  therefore
\neither\trelease the accused or transmit him to\tthe  nearest
\nJudicial  Magistrate together with the entries in the  diary
\nbefore the expiry of seven days.  The Section also lays down
\nthat  the  Judicial  Magistrate who  is\t competent  to\tmake
\nfurther orders of detention, for the purposes of   computing
\nthe  period of detention has to take into consideration\t the
\nperiod\tof  detention ordered by the  Executive\t Magistrate.
\nTherefore  on a combined reading of Section 167(2) and\t(2A)
\nit  emerges  that  the\tJudicial  Magistrate   to  whom\t the
\nExecutive Magistrate has forwarded the arrested accused\t can
\norder\tdetention in such custody namely police\t custody  or
\njudicial  custody under Section 167(2) for the rest  of\t the
\nfirst  fifteen days after deducting the period of  detention
\nordered\t  by  the  Executive  Magistrate.    The   detention
\nthereafter  could only be in judicial custody. Likewise\t the
\nremand\tunder Section 309 Cr. P.C. can be only\tto  judicial
\ncustody interims mentioned therein.  This has been concluded
\nby this Court and the language of the Section also is clear.
\nSection 309 comes into operation after taking cognizance and
\nnot during the period of investigation and the remand  under
\nthis  provision\t can only be to judicial custody  and  there
\ncannot\tbe  any controversy about the  same.,  vide  Natabar
\nParida and other v. State of Orissa, [1975] 2 SCC 220.\n<\/p>\n
     The   learned  Additional\tSolicitor  General   however
\nsubmitted that in some of the cases of grave crimes it would
\nbe  impossible\tfor the police to gather  all  the  material
\nwithin first fifteen days and if some  valuable\t information
\nis  disclosed  at  a later stage and if\t police\t custody  is
\ndenied the investigation will be hampered and will result in
\nfailure\t of  justice.\tThere  may be  some  force  in\tthis
\nsubmission but the purpose of police custody
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 175<\/span>
\nand  the approach of the legislature in placing\t limitations
\non this are obvious.  The proviso to Section 167 is explicit
\non  this aspect.  The detention in police custody  generally
\ndisfavoured  by\t law.  The provisions of law lay  down\tthat
\nsuch detention can be allowed only in special  circumstances
\nand   that can be only be a remand granted by  a  magistrate
\nfor  reasons  judicially scruitnised and  for  such  limited
\npurposes  as the necessities of the case may  require.\t The
\nscheme of Section 167 is obvious and  is intended to protect
\nthe  accused from the methods  which may be adopted by\tsome
\noverzealous  and  unscrupulous police officers.\t Article  22
\n(2)  of the Constitution of India and Section 57  of  Cr.P.C
\ngive  a\t mandate  that\tevery person  who  is  arrested\t and
\ndetained  in  police custody shall be  produced\t before\t the
\nnearest\t magistrate  within  a period of 24  hours  of\tsuch
\narrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the
\nplace  of the arrest to the court of the magistrate  and  no
\nsuch person shall be detained in the custody beyond the said
\nperiod\twithout\t the authority of a magistrate.\t  These\t two
\nprovisions clearly manifest the intention of the law in this
\nregard\tand   therefore\t it is the  magistrate\twho  has  to
\njudicially  scrutinise\tcircumstances and if  satisfied\t can
\norder  the  detention  of the  accused\tin  police  custody.
\nSection\t 167(3)\t requires that the  magistrate\tshould\tgive
\nreasons for authorising the detention in the custody of\t the
\npolice.\t  It  can  be  thus  seen  that\t  the  whole  scheme
\nunderlying  the Section is intended  to limit the period  of
\npolice\t custody.    However,  taking\tinto   account\t the
\ndifficulties   which   may  arise  in  completion   of\t the
\ninvestigation  of  cases of serious nature  the\t legislature
\nadded  the  proviso providing for further detention  of\t the
\naccused for a period of ninety days but in clear terms it is
\nmentioned  in the proviso that such detention could only  be
\nin the judicial custody . During this period the police\t are
\nexpected  to  complete\tthe investigation  even\t in  serious
\ncases.\tLikewise within the  period of sixty days they\t are
\nexpected  to complete the investigation in respect of  other
\noffences.   The\t legislature however  disfavoured  even\t the
\nprolonged  judicial custody during investigation.   That  is
\nwhy the proviso lays down that on the expiry of ninety\tdays
\nor  sixty days the accused shall  be released on bail if  he
\nis  prepared to and does furnish bail.\tIf as  contended  by
\nthe   learned\tAdditional   Solicitor\tGeneral\t a   further
\ninterrogation is necessary after the expiry of the period of
\nfirst  fifteen\tdays there is no bar for  interrogating\t the
\naccused who is in judicial custody during the periods of  90
\ndays  or  60 days.  We are therefore unable to\taccept\tthis
\ncontention.\n<\/p>\n
     A question may then arise whether a person arrested  in
\nrespect of
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 176<\/span>
\nan  offence alleged to have been committed by him during  an
\noccurrence  can\t be  detained again  in\t police\t custody  in
\nrespect of another offence committed by him in the same case
\nand which fact comes to light after the expiry of the period
\nof first fifteen days of his arrest.  The learned Additional
\nSolicitor  General  submitted  that  as\t  a  result  of\t the
\ninvestigation  carried on and the evidence collected by\t the
\npolice the arrested accused may be found to  be involved  in
\nmore  serious  offences\t than  the  one\t for  which  he\t was
\noriginally  arrested  and that in such a case there   is  no
\nreason\tas to why the accused who is in magisterial  custody
\nshould not be turned over to police custody at a  subsequent
\nstage  of investigation when the information  discloses\t his
\ncomplicity  in\tmore serious offences.\tWe  are\t  unable  to
\nagree.\tIn one occurrence it may so happen that\t the accused
\nmight  have  committed several offences and the\t police\t may
\narrest\thim  in connection with one or two offences  on\t the
\nbasis  of  the\tavailable  information\tand   obtain  police
\ncustody.  If during the investigation his complicity in more
\nserious\t offences  during the same occurrence  is  disclosed
\nthat does not authorise the police to ask for police custody
\nfor  a further period after the expiry of the first  fifteen
\ndays.\t If  that  is permitted than the police\t can  go  on
\nadding\tsome  offence or the other of a\t serious  nature  at
\nvarious stages and seek further detention in police  custody
\nrepeatedly,  this  would defeat the very  object  underlying
\nSection 167.  However, we must clarify that this  limitation
\nshall\tnot  apply  to\ta  different  occurrence  in   which
\ncomplicity of the arrested accused is disclosed.  That would
\nbe  as\tdifferent  transaction\tand  if\t an  accused  is  in
\njudicial custody in connection with one case and  to  enable
\nthe police to complete their investigation of the other case
\nthey  can  require his detention in police custody  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  associating him with the investigation  of\t the
\nother  case.   In  such a situation  he\t must  be   formally
\narrested  in connection with other case and then obtain\t the
\norder  of  the magistrate for detention in  police  custody.
\nThe  learned Additional Solicitor General  however  strongly
\nrelied\ton  some of the observations made by  Hardy,  J.  in
\nMehar  Chand’s\tcase  extracted\t above\tin  support  of\t his
\ncontention  namely  that  an arrested accused\twho   is  in
\njudicial  custody can be turned over to police custody\teven
\nafter  the  expiry  of first fifteen days  at  a  subsequent
\nstage  of  the\tinvestigation  in  the\tsame  case  if\t the
\ninformation   discloses\t his  complicity  in  more   serious
\noffences.   We are unable to agree that the mere  fact\tthat
\nsome  more  offences alleged to have been committed  by\t the
\narrested accused in the same case are discovered in the same
\ncase would by itself render it to be a different case.\t All
\nthese offences
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      177<\/span>
\nincluding  the\tso-called serious offences discovered  at  a
\nlater stage arise out of the same transaction in  connection
\nwith  which the accused was arrested.  Therefore there is  a
\nmarked\t difference   between  the  two\t  situations.\t The
\noccurrences constituting two different transaction give rise
\nto  two\t different  cases and the exercise  of\tpower  under
\nSection\t 167(1)\t and (2) should be in  consonance  with\t the
\nobject\tunderlying the said provision in respect of each  of
\nthose  occurrences  which constitute  two  different  cases.
\nInvestigation in one specific case cannot be the same as  in
\nthe  other.  Arrest and detention in custody in the  context
\nof  Sections  167(1)  and (2) of the Code has  to  be  truly
\nviewed\twith  regard to the investigation of  that  specific
\ncase  in  which\t the  accused person  has  been\t taken\tinto
\ncustody.   In  S. Harsimran Singh v. State of  Punjab,\t1984
\nCrl.  L.J.  253 a Division Bench of the Punjab\tand  Haryana
\nHigh  Court  considered the question whether  the  limit  of
\npolice\tcustody\t exceeding  fifteen days  as  prescribed  by
\nSection\t 167(2)\t is  applicable only to single\tcase  or  is
\nattracted   to\ta  series  of  different   cases   requiring
\ninvestigation against the same accused and held thus:
\n\t “We  see  no  inflexible bar against  a  person  in
\n\t custody   with\t  regard  to  investigation   of   a
\n\t particular offence being either re-arrested for the
\n\t purpose  of  the  investigation  of  an  altogether
\n\t different offence.  To put it in other words, there
\n\t is  no insurmountable hurdle in the  conversion  of
\n\t judicial custody into police custody by an order of
\n\t the  Magistrate  under\t S.167(2) of  the  Code\t for
\n\t investigation\t another  offence.    Therefore,   a
\n\t rearrest  or second arrest in a different  case  is
\n\t not necessarily beyond the ken of law”.\n<\/p>\n
     This view of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
\nHigh  Court appears to be practicable and also\tconforms  to
\nSection 167.  We may, however, like to make it explict\tthat
\nsuch  re-arrest or second arrest and seeking police  custody
\nafter the expiry of the period of first fifteen days  should
\nbe  with  regard to the investigation of  a  different\tcase
\nother than the specific one in respect of which the  accused
\nis  already in custody.\t A literal construction\t of  Section
\n167(2) to the effect that a fresh remand for police  custody
\nof a person already in judicial custody during investigation
\nof a specific case cannot under any circumstances be issued,
\nwould  seriously hamper the very investigation of the  other
\ncase the importance of which needs no special emphasis.\t The
\nprocedural law is meant to further the\tends of justice\t and
\nnot to frustrate the same.  It is an accepted rule that an
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       178<\/span>
\ninterpretation which furthers the ends of justice should  be
\npreferred.   It is true that the police custody is  not\t the
\nbe-all and end-all of the whole investigation but yet it  is
\none   of   its\tprimary\t requisites  particularly   in\t the
\ninvestigation\tof   serious  and   henious   crimes.\t The
\nlegislature  also noticed this and permitted limited  police
\ncustody.  The period of first fifteen days  should naturally
\napply in respect of the investigation of that specific\tcase
\nfor  which the accused is held in custody. But such  custody
\ncannot further held to be a bar for invoking a fresh  remand
\nto  such  custody  like\t police custody\t in  respect  of  an
\naltogether different case involving the same accused.\n<\/p>\n
     As\t the  points  considered  above\t have  an  important
\nbearing\t in discharge of the day-to-day\t magisterial  powers
\ncontemplated  under Section 167(2), we think it\t appropriate
\nto sum up briefly our conclusions as under :\n<\/p>\n
     Whenever  any  person  is\tarrested  under\t Section  57
\nCr.P.C. he should be  produced before the nearest Magistrate
\nwithin 24 hours as mentioned therein.  Such Magistrate\t may
\nor  may not have jurisdiction to try the case.\tIf  Judicial
\nMagistrate is not available, the police officer may transmit
\nthe arrested accused to the nearest Executive Magistrate  on
\nwhom the judicial powers have been conferred.  The  Judicial
\nMagistrate can in the first instance authorise the detention
\nof  the\t accused  in  such custody  i.e.  either  police  or
\njudicial from time to time but the total period of detention
\ncannot exceed fifteen day in the whole.\t Within this  period
\nof  fifteen days there can be more than one  order  changing
\nthe nature of such custody either from police to judicial or
\nvice-versa.  If the arrested accused is produced before\t the
\nExecutive  Magistrate  he  is  empowered  to  authorise\t the
\ndetention in such custody either police or judicial only for
\na week, in the same manner namely by one or more orders\t but
\nafter  one  week  he  should transmit  him  to\tthe  nearest
\nJudicial  Magistrate  along   with the\trecords.   When\t the
\narrested accused is so transmitted the Judicial\t Magistrate,
\nfor the remaining period, that is to say excluding one\tweek
\nor the number of days of detention ordered by the  Executive
\nMagistrate,  may  authorise further  detention\twithin\tthat
\nperiod\tof first fifteen days to such custody either  police
\nor  judicial.\tAfter  the expiry of  the  first  period  of
\nfifteen\t days  the  further remand  during  the\t period\t o;f
\ninvestigation can only be in judicial custody.\tThere cannot
\nbe  any detention in the police custody after the expiry  of
\nfirst  fifteen days even in a case where some more  offences
\neither\tserious\t or otherwise committed by him in  the\tsame
\ntransaction come to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t179<\/span>
\nlight at a later stage.\t But this bar does not apply if\t the
\nsame  arrested\taccused\t is involved  in  a  different\tcase
\narising\t out of a different transaction.  Even\tif he is  in
\njudicial custody in connection with the investigation of the
\nearlier\t case  he  can formally be  arrested  regarding\t his
\ninvolvement in the different case and associate him with the
\ninvestigation of that other case and the Magistrate can\t act
\nas  provided under Section 167(2) and the  proviso  and\t can
\nremand\thim to such custody as mentioned therein during\t the
\nfirst  period of fifteen days and thereafter  in  accordance
\nwith  the proviso as discussed above.  If the  investigation
\nis  not completed within the period of ninety days or  sixty
\ndays then the accused has to be released on bail as provided
\nunder  the proviso to Section 167(2).  The period of  ninety
\ndays  or  sixty days has to  be computed from  the  date  of
\ndetention  as per the orders of the Magistrate and not\tfrom
\nthe  date  of arrest by the police. Consequently  the  first
\nperiod of fifteen days mentioned in Section 167(2) has to be
\ncomputed  from\tthe date of such  detention  and  after\t the
\nexpiry\tof  the period\tof first fifteen days it  should  be
\nonly judicial custody.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t may, however, in the end clarify that the  position
\nof  law stated above applies to Section 167 as it stands  in
\nthe  Code.  If there are any State amendments enlarging\t the
\nperiods\t of detention, different consideration may arise  on
\nthe basis of the language employed in those amendments.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeals are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     V.P.R.\t\t\t\tAppeals dismissed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    180<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Central Bureau Of Investigation, … vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1768, 1992 SCR (3) 158 Author: K J Reddy Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) PETITIONER: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIALINVESTIGATION CELL-I Vs. RESPONDENT: ANUPAM J. KULKARNI DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/05\/1992 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCentral Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1992-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-11T20:56:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Central Bureau Of Investigation, … vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T20:56:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992\"},\"wordCount\":7492,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992\",\"name\":\"Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T20:56:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Central Bureau Of Investigation, … vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-11T20:56:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Central Bureau Of Investigation, … vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992","datePublished":"1992-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T20:56:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992"},"wordCount":7492,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992","name":"Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T20:56:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-bureau-of-investigation-vs-anupam-j-kulkarni-on-8-may-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Central Bureau Of Investigation, … vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196555"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196555\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}