DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus DEEPAK MAHAJAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 31-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 14 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

: 
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 
A 
v. 
DEEPAK MAHAJAN AND ANR. 
JANUARY 31, 1994 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code 1973: Sections 167(1) and (2)--Person ar-
rested under Special Act viz. FERA or Customs Act and produced before a 
Magistrate-Jurisdiction to authorise detention-Held : Magistrate has the 
jurisdiction under S. 167(2)-ATTest and custody-Distinction between-ATTest C 
condition precedent to judicial custody-Object and applicability of S. 
167( 1)-AlTest need not be by Police Officer alone-'Police Officer' includes 
authorised or empowered officer under special Acts like FERA/Customs Act. 
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1993/Customs Act, 1962-S. 
35(2 )1104(2 )--Procedure under s. 167 Cr. P. C.-Whether attracted after a1Test D 
of a person under FERA/Customs Ac~Jurisdiction of Magistrate to authorise 
detention u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Subsidiary Rules--l'rovisions to be con-
stmed to jUrther the ends of justice and not to fmstrate the same-Legislative E 
intent-To remove the difficulties courts can mould and creatively interpret 
the provisions-Can consider the object and purpose of the enactmen~an 
adopt jUnctional approach and go behind the words and also consider other 
factors to ascertain the legislative intent. 
Words & Phrases: 'Accused'-'AlTest'-'Person arrested' 'Police F 
Officer'-'Diary'-'/nvestigation'-Meaning of in the context of S. 167 Cr. 
P.C./S. 35(2) of FERA/S. 104(2) of Customs Act. 
Respondent No. 1 was arrested by the officers of the Enforcement 
Directorate for an offence punishable under the pro\'isions of Foreign G 
Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and produced before the Magistrate. An 
application under S.167(2) Cr.P.C. was moved by the Enforcement Officer 
seeking the petitioner's detention under judicial custody on the ground 
that it was necessary to complete the investigation. The respondent moved 
the Court for bail but was not successful. He challenged the jurisdiction 
of the Magistrate in authorising his detention and its extensions. His plea H 
445 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) _1 S.C.R. 
A was rejected on the basis of the decision in Union of India v. O.P. Gupta 
and Ors., (1990) 2 Delhi Lawyer 23(FB) by a three Judges Bench, reversing 
the decision of a Division Bench in Dhalam Chand Baid v. Union of India 
Ors., (1982) Crl. Law Journal 747 which held that a Magistrate had no 
power to remand a person accused of an offence punishable under FERA 
B 
to judicial custody. 
The order of the Magistrate was challenged before the High Court. 
A Division Bench heard the matter and referred it to a three Judges Benr.h 
which in turn referred it to a five-Judges B~nch since Gupta's case was 
decided by a three-Judges Bench. The five Judges Bench by majority 
C O\'er-ruled the decisions in Gupta's case and held that the Magistrate had 
no power to remand a person produced before him in accordance with S. 
35(2) ofFERA. 
The said decision has been challenged in the present appeal. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 167 are squarely 
applicable with regard to the production and detention of a person ar-
rested under the provisions of Section 35 of Foreign Exchange Regulation 
Act (FERA) and S.104 of Customs Act and that the Magistrate has 
E jurisdiction under Section 167(2) to authorise detention of a person ar-
rested by any authorised officer of the Enforcement under FERA and taken 
to the Magistrate in compliance of Section 35(2) of FERA. [498-A-B] 
F 
Union of India v. O.P. Gupta and Others, (1990) 2 Delhi Lawyer 23 
(FB), affirmed. 
Dhalam Chand Baid v. Union of India and Ors., (1982) Crl. Law 
Journal 747, overruled. 
Chaganti Satyanarayana and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 
G (1986) SC 2130 = [1986] 2 SCR 1128, referred to. 
2.1. A conjoint reading of Sections 57 and 167(1) and (2) Cr.P.C. 
barring the provisos to sub-section (2), manifestly shows that the legisla-
ture has contemplated that the investigation of the offence in case of a 
person arrested without a warrant should be completed in the first in-
H stance within twenty four hours and if the investigation cannot be com-
·. 
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. DEEPAK 
447 
pleted within that period, then the Magistrate can authorise the detention A 
of the accused in such custody as he thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 
days. [468-G, H; 469-A] 
2.2. Proviso a(i) and (ii) of Section 167(
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.