TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The present Revision Application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is filed by the applicant-Investigating Agency impugning Order dated 2nd February 2021 passed in Remand Application No. 117 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Gr. Mumbai, rejecting the prayer of applicant to grant custody of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for further period of 7 days for the purpose of investigation. 2. Heard Mr.Shirsat, learned Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ambekar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent No.1-State, Mr.Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.3. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Revision can be summarized as under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020. As the interrogation of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not be completed by the Investigating Agency within the said stipulated period, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were again produced before the Special Court on 30th January 2021 along with fresh elaborate Remand Application dated 30th January 2021, seeking further custody of respondent Nos.2 and 3 for interrogation. The Special Court by its Order dated 30th January 2021 extended custody of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for a further period of three days i.e. upto 2nd February 2021. The record further reveals that, on 2nd February 2021 again the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were produced before the Special Court with a further and more elaborate remand application, seeking their further custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and detailed remand report dated 2nd February 2021 filed by the Investigating Agency. He further submitted that, the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the necessity of further custodial interrogation of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the applicant/Investigating Agency for unearthing their intrinsic complicity in the crime, as the said respondent Nos.2 and 3 only are aware of the trail of money and monetary transactions effected by them in a large span of time. He therefore prayed that, the impugned Order may be set-aside and the custody of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 be granted to the applicant for their interrogation. 5. The chronology of events noted hereinabove are admitted facts on record. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 were....