STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus DINESH DALMIA

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 25-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

""'-
STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
A 
v. 
DINESH DALMIA 
APRIL 25, 2007 
[A.K. MATHURANDTARUN CHATTERJEE,JJ.] 
B 
j 
°' 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S. 167(1) and (2), Proviso-Authorisation of accused in custody of the c 
police-"Custody of the police"-Connotation of-Accused in custody of 
police in a different case at Chennai-On coming to know that he is required 
in other cases also at Calcutta, voluntarily surrendering before Magistrate 
at Chennai-Later, accused produced in connection with Calcutta case 
before Magistrate at Calcutta and remanded to custody of police for 
investigation in Calcutta case-Plea of accused for bail on the ground that D 
counted from the date of his surrender; the police failed to file the challan 
\ 
within the prescribed period-Held, voluntary surrender cannot be conceived 
to be detention under the case registered at Calcutta-Judicial custody/ 
dP-tention in another case cannot be treated as custody of police for 
investigation purpose in instant case. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
"Custody of the police" as occurring in s. 167 Cr. PC-Meaning of 
.,. 
Respondent was required by Calcutta Police in connection with Crime 
Case No. 300/2002 and 476/2002. The Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta by order F 
dated 13.2.2006 directed that respondent-accused be produced before him on 
22.2.2006. Meanwhile, the respondent was arrested and produced before 
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 14.2.2006 in 
connection with a CBI case and the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta 
was brought to the notice of Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, G 
-. ., 
Chennai, who observed that matter of Calcutta Police would be considered 
after the period of CBI custody was over, the respondent was to remain in 
CBI Custody till 24.2.2006. When the respondent came to know that Calcutta 
Police required him in two more cases, he voluntarily surrendered before 
the Magistrate at Chennai on 27.2.2006. The ACJM Egmore, Chennai 
561 
H 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
-
/ 
A remanded the accused to judicial custody till 13.3.2006 and directed 
production of accused before the Court at Calcutta. On 13.3.2006 respondent 
was produced before CJM, Calcutta. The Investigating Officer required 15 
days police remand of the respondent. An application for respondent's bail 
was filed before the ACJM, Calcutta contending that he had surrendered on 
B 
27.2.2006 before the Magistrate at Chennai and as the period of 15 days was 
over and the police did not file the challan, he was entitled to be enlarged on 
bail. The prosecution case was that he was arrested by CBI in different case 
and in the instant case he was produced before Calcutta High Court on 
I 
13.3.2006, so the period of 15 days was not over. The bail application was 
~ 
rejected and respondent was remanded to police custody upto 28.3.2006. Later, 
c on another application for bail filed on behalf of the respondent, when the matter 
was taken to High Court in revision, the High Court held that detention of 
respondent in Case No. 476/2002 should be counted from 27.2.2006, i.e. the 
date he surrendered himself before ACJM, Egmore, Chennai and directed the 
Metropolitan Magistrate to consider the matter in that light. Aggrieved, the 
D 
State filed the present appeal. 
On the question: Whether the detention period in case No. 476/2002 
' 
should be counted from 13.3.2006 when the police took the accused in custody 
or the period should be counted from 27.2.2006 when the accused surrendered 
before the Magistrate at Chennai. 
E 
Allowing the appeal of the State, the Court 
HELD: I. In connection with Case No. 476/2002 of Calcutta, the accused 
was produced before the Calcutta Court on 13th March, 2006 and the Court 
directed the custody of the accused to the police on the same day for 
F investigation in the criminal case registered against him in Calcutta. 
_, 
Therefore, the police custody will be treated from 13th March, 2006 and not 
from 27th February, 2006. The accused was very well aware that there were 
two cases registered against him in Calcutta for which he was required by 
the Police, so he voluntarily surrendered before the Magistrate on 27th 
February, 2006 when he was already in custody in relation to the CBI case. 
G Therefore, this voluntary surrender cannot be conceived to be detention under 
a case registered at Calcutta i.e. Case No. 476/2002. In this back-ground, 
r--. . 
the view taken by the single Judge th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.