TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er submitted that the Judge has not applied its mind while refusing the police custody for the purpose of custodial interrogation of the respondents and passed the order which is bereft of any sound reasoning. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the offence started way-back in 2008 and the offence of money laundering is complicated in nature requiring investigation of various aspects and the money trail. During the course of the investigation/interrogation, some of the proceeds of crime are found to be linked and siphoned off to foreign companies. The money trail which is found during investigation is required to be confronted and further investigated. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the custodial interrogation of the respondents is required to unearth the conspiracy which has been hatched by the respondents for the last 9/10 years. Hence, in view of the voluminous record, documents and the nature of transactions in the present matters, the Judge ought to have granted police custody of the respondents to the petitioner for the purpose of custodial interrogation. 5. It has also been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the matters involve public mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igarh Admn.), (1978) 2 SCC 365; Gaurav Gupta v. Director of Enforcement, Bail Application No.484/2015; Shameet Mukherjee v. C.B.I., Crl. Misc. Main No.1817/2003 and State v. NMT Joy Immaculate, 2004 Cri L J 2515. 11. In Crl.M.C.6019/2019, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Malvinder Mohan Singh that the contention or averment of the investigation agency that voluminous documents and e-mails were recovered and required to be confronted to the respondent during the period of his police custody, is a false submission and a mere eye-wash. To substantiate the same, the attention of the Court was drawn to the compilation filed by the learned counsel for the respondent wherein it was pointed out at page No.12 that vide seizure memo dated 01.08.2019, laptops, hard disks etc. were already seized from the possession of the respondent and the Managers of the respondent, from his office as well as his residence. Learned counsel further submitted that the afore-mentioned point was also argued before the Judge and the order dated 23.11.2019 was based upon this fact, however, the order could not reflect the same but that does not mean it was not argued before the Judge ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The legislature also noticed this and, has therefore, permitted limited police custody." 15. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which is extracted hereunder: "(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that- (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with deat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o persuade the Court to remand him into police custody for the purpose of further investigation and it is the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds and that the material placed before him, as discussed hereinabove, justify the police remand of the accused. 20. After satisfying himself regarding the adequacy of the grounds for the purpose of police detention or remand before passing the order of detention or remand, the Magistrate shall pass necessary orders only thereafter. 21. The Magistrate authorising remand under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. can only examine the record to see whether there exists some material to justify the remand, however, the Magistrate cannot conduct a roving enquiry to test the sufficiency of material at this stage for the obvious reason that investigation would be at a nascent stage and the police are yet to file a report either under Section 169 or Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. 22. There is no doubt that while exercising jurisdiction to remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not required to write an elaborate order granting or refusing remand. However, as the Magistrate acts judicially in deciding an ....