Name – kshitiz Bansal

Sap id – 500093732
Case analysis of CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992)

SUBJECT-
Anupam J Kulkarni's case where the issue of imprisonment and detention in custody was
discussed, it was held that under S.167 (2) the Magistrate can allow detention of the accused
in jail as he thinks fit but it should not exceed 15 days in total.

OVERVIEW AND FACTS -

The case of abduction of four Mumbai diamond merchants and one Shri Kulkarni was
reported to Tughlak Road Police Station, New Delhi on 16.9.91 and the investigation was
assigned to C.B.I. During the course of investigation it came to light that not only four
diamond merchants but also Shri Kulkarni who is the respondent before us and one driver
Babulal were abducted between 14th and 15th September, 1991 from two hotels in Delhi.
Kulkarni was arrested on 4.10.91 and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on
5.10.91 in charge of Judicial Detention before 11.10.91 Based on certain existing content,
Shri Kulkarni was arrested on 4.10.91 and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Delhi on 5.10.91. On the orders of the C.B.I. Shri Kulkarni was in custody till 11.10.91. A
demonstration was organized on 10.10.91 in recognition of the test but Shri Kulkarni refused
to comply and his reluctance was reported by the competent Munsif. On 11.10.91, a request
was made by the investigating officer to detain Shri Kulkarni, which was granted. As he was
taken by way of Shri Kulkarni who was said to be indisposed, he was taken to the hospital the
same night where he remained admitted under the presumption of illness till 21.10.91 and
then he was taken to the cardiology ward. Department of G.B. Pant Hospital. It was only on
29.10.91 that Shri Kulkarni was remanded in judicial custody by the Magistrate and
thereafter sent to jail. Since the police could not send him to police custody all those days, the
investigating officer again appealed to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take Shri
Kulkarni into police custody. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relied on the decision of the
State High Court of Delhi (Delhi Admn.) v. Dharam Pal and others, 1982 Crl. Oh, L.J. 1103
ignoring the police order. Challenging the same and revision was filed in Delhi High Court.
The abducted persons namely four diamond merchants do not point the finger of accusation
against Shri Kulkarni and that Shri Kulkarni himself was in any case interrogated for nearly
seven days in the C.B.I jail. and he did not reveal anything about him, therefore it is not
desirable to put him in prison and from this point of view he granted him bail. However, the
High Court did not rule on the question of whether, after the initial period of 15 days, a
person can still be taken into police custody by the judge before whom he was produced. The
said resolution is challenged by these appeals.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS-
 § 167 OZ- The whole purpose of § 167 tr. PC is that the accused should not be detained for
more than 24 hours and subject to 15 days police custody and further it may be extended up
to 90/60 days, as the case may be. § 57 of the Criminal Code – An arrested person may not be
detained for more than twenty-four hours. No police officer shall detain a person arrested
without a warrant for a longer period than is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case,
and such period shall not exceed, without a special order of the magistrate under section 167,
twenty-four hours, exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
the magistrate's court. Section 344 of the Criminal Code - Section 344 of the Criminal Code
deals with summary proceedings for providing false evidence. According to the provision, the
court concerned must first form an opinion that the witness appearing in the proceedings
before it has knowingly or intentionally given or fabricated false evidence. § 309 of the
Criminal Code- § 309 of the Criminal Code. is the section dealing with detention during court
proceedings. In addition, after filing the indictment § 209 civil can also be used to remand the
accused by the Magistrates' Court (if applicable) which will refer the case to the Court of
Appeal if the case is decided exclusively by the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES
 whether a person arrested and produced before the nearest Magistrate as required
under Section 167(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can still be remanded to police
custody after the expiry of the initial period of 15 days?
 Bar for interrogating the accused who is in judicial custody during the periods of 90
days or 60 days.
 Whether a person arrested in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed
by him during an occurrence can be detained again in police custody in respect of
another offence committed by him in the same case and which fact comes to light
after the expiry of the period of the first 15 days of his arrest?

Analysis of judgement-

The process through which the higher court sends appeals back to the subordinate court for
additional hearings is known as judicial remand, commonly known as a remand. It also
applies when the offender is returned to detention for additional questioning. In this particular
case, the ruling was as follows: Wherever a person is detained in accordance with Section 57
Cr. According to the terms of the document, the PC must be shown to the closest magistrate
within 24 hours. This magistrate might or might not be competent to hear the case. The police
officer might transfer the imprisoned offender to the closest executive magistrate to whom the
judicial powers have been transferred if the judicial magistrate is ineligible.
 The Judicial Magistrate can, in the first place, permit the imprisonment of the
defendant in such custody, i.e. either police or judicial from time to time, although the
actual duration of detention may not reach 15 days in total. Under this 15-day period,
more than one order can alter the form of such detention, either from officer to
correctional, or vice versa.
 If the criminal is taken before the Executive Magistrate, he shall be empowered to
cause him to be held in such imprisonment for a week, either by the police or by the
courts, in the same way, i.e. by one or more orders, except after one week, he shall be
forwarded to the nearest Judicial Magistrate along with the documents.
 After the expiry of the primary time of fifteen days the further remand during the
time of examination - must be in legal authority. There can not be any confinement in
the police authority after the expiry of initial fifteen days even for a situation where
some more offenses eitherserious or in any case submitted by him in a similar
exchange become known at a later stage. In any case, this bar doesn't matter if a
similar captured denounced is engaged with an alternate case emerging out of an
alternate exchange.
 After the expiry of the primary time of fifteen days the further remand during the
time of examination - must be in legal authority. There can not be any confinement in
the police authority after the expiry of initial fifteen days even for a situation where
some more offenses either serious or in any case submitted by him in a similar
exchange become known at a later stage. In any case, this bar doesn't matter if a
similar captured denounced is engaged with an alternate case emerging out of an
alternate exchange.
 Regardless of whether he is in legal guardianship regarding the examination of the
prior - case he can officially be captured with respect to his inclusion in the distinctive
case and partner him with the examination of that other case and the Magistrate can
go about as given under Section 167(2) and the stipulation and can remand him to
such authority as referenced in that during the main time of fifteen days and from
there on as per the stipulation as examined previously,
 If the investigation is not concluded under ninety days or sixty days, the accused shall
be released on bail, as provided for in Section 167. (2). The term of ninety days or
sixty days must be measured from the day of the incarceration, in compliance with the
orders of the Judge, and not from the date of the police arrest.
 Correspondingly, the first 15-day duration alluded to in Article 167(2) must be
determined from the time of such imprisonment and, at the completion of the first 15-
day period, only judicial custody must be given.

conclusion-

Regardless of whether a person is under legal guardianship for the purposes of the
investigation of the prior case, he can be legally apprehended with regard to his
inclusion in the current case and paired with the investigation of that other case, and
the Magistrate can act in accordance with Section 167(2) and the agreement,
remanding the person to the relevant authority for the primary period of fifteen days,
and then proceed according to the agreement as examine. The judgement itself was
thoroughly thought out, and appropriate reliance was placed on decisions made by
lower courts, legislative history, and a variety of other items.