State of WB vs. Dinesh Dalmia AIR 2007 SC 1801

Advertisements

State of WB vs. Dinesh Dalmia AIR 2007 SC 1801

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On September 9, 2002, the Secretary of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited filled a written complaint with the Hare Street Police Station stating that Dinesh Dalmia and others committed offences under sections – 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.  
2. The Detective Department (Special Cell), Lalbazar, took over the investigation of the matter after treating the complaint as a First Information Report.  
3. However, Dinesh Dalmia was apprehended in New Delhi by the C.B.I. in connection with another case. He was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Chennai on transit remand. 
4. The official investigating the criminal case in Calcutta filed for issuing a production warrant against the accused Dinesh Dalmia before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Calcutta, who granted the prayer and commanded that the accused be produced before him on or before 22.02.2006. 
5. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Chennai stated that the petition of the investigating officer of Calcutta would be considered once the period of C.B.I. detention expired. 
6. On 27.02.2006, while the accused Dinesh Dalmia was in the custody of the C.B.I. in Chennai, he voluntarily surrendered before the Metropolitan Magistrate in Chennai in connection with the criminal case that had been initiated in Calcutta. 
7. The accused Dinesh Dalmia’s surrender was accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate in Chennai, who remanded him in judicial prison till 13.03.2003. 
8. On March 11, 2006, the accused Dinesh Dalmia was turned over to the Calcutta Police, and on March 13, 2006, he appeared before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta. 
9. The investigation officer requested that the accused Dinesh Dalmia be held in police custody for fifteen days for the purpose of investigation. 
10. The accused, Dinesh Dalmia, filed an application for bail, claiming that the time of police remand for the first fifteen days of overall period of custody had elapsed when he surrendered before the Court of Magistrate in Chennai in connection with this matter on February 27, 2006. 
11. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta held that the accused’s custody could not be considered unless and until he was physically produced before the Court, which he did on 13.03.2006. Therefore, the period of police remand was to be calculated from the date of his physical production on 13.03.2006. 
12. Dinesh Dalmia, the accused, filed an appeal in the High Court against the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta. The High Court rejected the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta and declared that the accused’s custody should be considered beginning on February 27, 2006, when the accused surrendered before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in Chennai.
13. The State of West Bengal filled the current Special Leave Petition after feeling aggrieved by the judgement dated 27.9.2006 made by a learned Single judge of the Calcutta High Court. 

ISSUES RAISED

The main question that came up for discussion before the Supreme Court was – 

• Whether the detention time should begin on March 13, 2006, when the police arrested the accused, or on February 27, 2006 when the accused surrendered to the Metropolitan Magistrate in Chennai. 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

• The State’s learned counsel argued that under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., the term should begin when the accused is arrested or taken into custody by the police and not the date he surrendered before the Magistrate in Chennai on 27.02.2006. 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

• The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the time period should be measured starting from the day the accused-respondent turned himself in before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 
• In this regard, the learned counsel also refer the case Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra 2001 5 SCC 453. In this case the challan has not been submitted within the allotted 90 days. As a result, the accused was granted bail under sub-section 2 of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court’s two-judge panel, consisting of justices A.K. Mathur and Tarun Chatterjee, rendered its decision in this matter on April 25, 2007. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Apex Court revoked the learned Single judge of the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 27.09.2006, and granted the State of West Bengal’s appeal. The further instructed the Metropolitan Magistrate to handle the case in accordance with the law. 

According to the Supreme Court, police custody refers to police custody in a specific case of investigation, not judicial custody in another matter. The Court held that the accused must be tried independently for each separate offence, and separate proceedings will be begun, and independent remand might be obtained by the accused. 

CONCLUSION

The State of WB vs. Dinesh Dalmia AIR 2007 SC 1801 is a landmark case in terms of calculating the time of remand of the accused in multiple cases. In this case, the accused was well aware that there were two cases registered against him in Calcutta for which he was required by the police, and as a result, he voluntarily surrendered before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 27.02.2006, while he was already in C.B.I. custody in connection with another case. For the purpose of calculating the required period, such fictitious surrender cannot be classified as police detention. Through this decision, the court made it clear that police custody means physical custody of the prisoner rather than judicial remand by another court. 

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the accused Dinesh Dalmia’s police custody begins on the date of his actual production before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Calcutta on March 13, 2006, rather than his date of surrender before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in Chennai on February 27, 2006, when he was in the custody of the C.B.I. in connection with another case. 

written by Saheli Naha intern under legal vidhiya

Admin