DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Vs. SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the commission of an offence under Sec. 3, and, punishable under Sec. 4, of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Directorate of Enforcement, is making investigations into ECIR No. 02/STF/2021 dtd. 21/1/2021, against accused-respondent Sukhpal Singh Khaira.

(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge/Duty Judge concerned, through an order made on 11/11/2021, remanded the afore to ED custody for a day. Through the order (supra), he also directed that the respondent- accused be produced on 12/11/2021, at 10.00 A.M sharp before the learned CBI Judge, Mohali. On 12/11/2021, the learned Court concerned, further made an order hence remanding the accused-respondent, to E.D., custody for a period extending upto 07 days. Subsequently, the Special Public Prosecutor concerned, asked through an application, for a further remand upto seven days, of the accused, to E.D. custody. The afore prayer as carried in Annexure P-4, became declined by the learned Court concerned, through an order made on 18/11/2021. The afore made order is challenged by the Directorate of Enforcement, through its casting the instant petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the respondent-accused, has contended with much vigour, before this Court that since Sec. 167, of the Cr.P.C., carries a mandate that the total period of police custody lasts, only upto a period of 15 days. Therefore, he further contends that since from the date of the initial production, on 11/11/2021, of the accused, before the Court concerned, as became necessitated, on his arrest, by the petitioner herein, the respondent-accused became remanded, for a day, to the custody of the Enforcement Department. Furthermore, he also submits that since thereafter the Court concerned, through an order made on 12/11/2021, further ordered the remand of the accused-respondent to E.D., custody, for a spell extending upto seven days. Therefore, he contends that since the total length or the period of custody of the accused-respondent, to the enforcement department, extended upto a period of 08 days. Consequently, he argues that with the impugned order becoming pronounced on 18/11/2021, therefore, the total statutorily contemplated spell of police custody, inasmuch as its duration lasting, only upto a period of 15 days, and, rather to become reckonable from 11/11/2021, hence expired on 25/11/2021. He also argues that after making of the impugned order on 18/11/2021, the accused-respondent is in judicial custody. Consequently, there cannot be any valid claim, by the petitioner herein, for his being transposed from judicial to police custody. In making the afore submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused has made dependence, upon a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, pronounced in case titled as Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi versus Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 Supreme Court Cases 141. He makes a vehement contention before this Court, that relevant paragraphs 13 and 14, as are carried therein, paragraphs whereof are extracted hereinafter, impose a blanket injunction, upon the Court concerned, against the transposition of the accused concerned, from judicial, to police custody, imperatively upon elapse of 15 days, since the initial production of the accused concerned, before the Court concerned.