ORDER
1. Faced with the difficulty created by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by which he refused the Customs authorities or any other Central Government Agency such as D.R.I. Central Excise, Narcotic Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate to have the accused placed in their custody, the Asstt. Collector of Customs by this application seeks a direction for issue of an examination warrant for production of respondents 1 to 5 for investigation and for holding that under the provisions of S. 267 or any other provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the authorities abovementioned are entitled to move the competent court for production of accused persons in judicial custody for being handed over to such agency for carrying out investigation and enquiries under any of the Central Enactments by issue of examination warrant.
2. On July 19, 1989 the staff of the Preventive Collectorate intercepted two fiat cars at the junction of Tejpal Lane, off Govalia Tank Bus Terminus and apprehended two persons Aslam - respondent No. 3 and Mohmed Yakub Shekh respondent No. 2 who attempted to take away the two Fiat cars after they opened the door and entered into the said cars. Aslam Mohmed is said to have attempted to take away one of the cars, but on seeing the Customs Officers, tried to run away, but was immediately apprehended the spot. Mohmed Shekh was apprehended while he was entering the other car. The searches of the two cars led to the recovery to 100 packets of brown coloured powder suspected to be narcotic drug which when tested with narcotic testing showed the presence of Heroin. The packets bore markings in Urdu pointing to their Pakistani origin and were estimated to be worth about Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. The two accused were arrested and articles were seized. The follow up action led to the apprehension of respondents 1, 4 and 5 in R.K. Hotel at Lamington Road and their statements came to be recorded and it appeared that the two drivers had been engaged by respondent No. 1. Respondents 4 and 5 are said to be employed for arranging delivery at Bombay for export of the contraband outside India. These persons after their arrest were produced before Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who granted remand till 4th August, 1989 to judicial custody. On 31-7-1989 an application was made by the authority concerned to the Magistrate for issue of examination warrant, but since the respondents were produced in the meantime before the Additional Sessions Judge, an application was made on August 2, 1989 to the Additional Sessions Judge who rejected that application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge permitted the authority to interrogate the respondents. On August 10, 1989 another application was made to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for direction to hand over the respondents to the Customs authorities with liberty to lodge them with Azad Maidan Police Station. That application was not pressed. While deciding the application dated 2nd of August, 1989 the learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that S. 267 which was sought to be invoked would not apply to the present situation and in no event enabled the Court to issue an examination warrant. In the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates only two types of custody judicial and police. Since Customs Officers are not Police Officers the custody of accused is not contemplated by S. 167 of the Cr. Procedure Code. It is this order which is being challenged by the present application.
3. S. 267(1) of the Code of Cr. Procedure, 1973 provides that whenever in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, it appears to the Criminal Court that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence or for the purpose of any proceedings against him or that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness, the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court for answering the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding, or, as the case may be for giving evidence. It is apparent that in order that sub-sec. (1) of S. 267 should apply, it is necessary that the requirement should be that he has to be brought before the Court for one or the other purposes mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) and it would not apply to a situation where it is necessary to produce the person for the purposes of investigation, before the agency which is engaged in the investigation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in pointing out that this provision would not apply to the stage at which the request was made by the investigating authorities to him.
4. In this context, reference may be made to the provisions of S. 167 of the Code and u/sub-sec. (1) of S. 167, if an investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty four hours fixed by S. 57 and there are grounds for believing that the accusation and information is well founded the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the, diary and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. Under sub-S. (2), the Magistrate may authorise detention 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 the Magistrate having such jurisdiction. The latter part of sub-sec. (2) will not apply to the cases which would come within the purview of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as amended (NDPS for short), because by virtue of S. 36A, the Magistrate cannot authorise detention for a period exceeding fifteen days in the whole and the further detention has to be authorised by the Special Court to whom the person is to be forwarded. Under Clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 36A, the Special Court may exercise in relation to the person forwarded to it u/cl. (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise u/S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to an accused person in such case who has been forwarded to him under that section.
5. The object of authorising the detention having by this very sub-sec. (1) of S. 167 is that some time should be available for completing the investigation which cannot be completed during the period of first twenty-four hours fixed by S. 57 and for facilitating the investigation should the Magistrate consider further detention of the accused necessary. Under proviso (a) to S. 167, no (sic) Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person otherwise than in custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but it shall not be for a period exceeding 90 days in the case of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years or sixty days where the investigation relates to any other offence. The repeated use of the word investigation in the context of S. 167 as well as in the proviso emphasizes the object for which the detention is considered necessary.
6. Obviously, in the present case, the investigation is not being done by the police and the provisions of S. 4(1) of the Code of Cr.P. do not directly apply as that section speaks of all offences under the Indian Penal Code which shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions, but subject to the enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner of place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
7. That takes me to the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act. Chapter 4 thereof creates offences and prescribes penalties and Chapter V lays down the procedure. U/S. 41, Metropolitan Magistrate is empowered to issue a warrant of arrest. Sub-section (2) refers to the powers of officers of gazetted rank of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government or of the Border Security Force as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government for arresting persons or searching buildings, conveyance or places. S. 42 relates to power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. S. 43 gives the power of seizure and arrest at public places while S. 53 enables the Central Government after consultation with the State Government to invest any officer of the department of Central Excise, narcotics customs, revenue intelligence or Border Security Force or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under the Act. Under S. 67 any authorised officer has power to call for the information from any person for the purposes of satisfying him whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of the Act or any rule or order made thereunder and require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry. It is not necessary to set out the detailed provisions enacted for the purpose of facilitating investigation into the offences, created by it, but it would be apparent that the powers of investigation conferred on the authorities under the N.D.P.S. Act are as comprehensive and wide as those of police officers, though they ate not police officers in the strict sense of the term.
8. On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that S. 167 Cr.P.C. contemplates only two types of custodies, police custody and judicial custody and, therefore, once the person is allowed to be detained in judicial custody, he cannot be placed in any other custody. This submission runs counter to the clear provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 167 which enables the Magistrate to authorise detention in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit. Proviso (a) to that sub-section only prohibits the custody of police beyond the period of fifteen days. The observations in State (Delhi Administration) v. Dharam Pal 1982 Cri LJ 1103 on which reliance was placed do not lend support to the contention that the choice is between only judicial custody and police custody. What the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed was that the nature of the custody can be altered from judicial custody to police custody and vice versa during the first period of fifteen days mentioned in S. 167(2) of the Code. After fifteen days, the accused can only be kept in judicial custody or in any other custody as ordered by the Magistrate, but not the custody of the police. There is no dispute here that Customs Officers are not Police Officers and the statements recorded before the Customs Officers unlike the statements recorded u/S. 161 of the Cr.P.C. can come in evidence in proper cases. Similarly, there is no bar to the admissibility of the statements recorded by Customs Officers though they may be inculpatory as obtained in the case of statements before the police and this position is apparent from the observations of this Court in R. N. Kaker v. Shabir Fidahusein, : 1989(1)BomCR503 . Having regard to the above factors, it is obvious that there is no legal bar to the Magistrate as the Additional Sessions Judge under the NDPS Act to grant a remand either to the judicial custody or custody of other agency such as Customs Officers who are not Police Officers if the circumstances so require.
9. Shri Gupte, the learned Counsel for the applicant urged that it would be extremely difficult for the Customs Authorities and other agencies who have to investigate into serious offences under the Central Acts to make any progress with the investigation if directions are not given by the Magistrate or the other authorities for enabling the investigating agency to carry on the investigation by providing for even temporary custody as was sought in the present case. Investigation does not mean only recording of statements of witnesses and the accused persons, but it may be necessary also to show the accused persons to the witnesses who may be in a position to identify them or to enlist the assistance of the accused persons for pointing out places which have relevance to the circumstances in which the offences might have been committed. It may be that the witnesses may be unwilling to go to jail where the accused is lodged and their assistance may be necessary either for confronting the accused with witnesses or for the witnesses to identify the accused persons and the only place where these functions can be suitably performed by the Customs Officers may be the Customs Offices or the offices of the other Central Agencies which have to carry on investigation. It is apparent that this difficulty was recognised by this Court in Prashant Kumar v. Mancharlal Bhagatram Bhatia where the learned Judge observed as follows (para 11) :
'Customs Officers do not have their lock-ups and consequently are in no position to seek the accused's remand into Customs custody. They are, therefore, left only to seek remand to judicial custody. That, however, does not mean that the custody of the accused is not necessary to facilitate the progress of the investigation. Whenever the Custom Officers require the custody of the accused, they approach the Magistrate for handing over the accused in their custody from judicial custody for facilitating the progress of investigation. The remand of the accused to judicial custody may become necessary to prevent the abscondence of the accused at the initial stages of the investigation and to prevent him from tampering with the evidence and thereby hampering the progress of the investigation. These aspects assume importance in cases of large scale conspiracy involving number of persons and contraband of high value which may be the subject matter of investigation.
10. It is apparent that the offences in life destroying drugs and economic offences have been on the increase and the smugglers disrupt the economy of the nation and erode the valuable foreign exchange. Clearly these aspects cannot be ignored by the Courts when considering their own powers and the ever increasing requirement of the changing situation where often the offenders out smart the investigating agency. To say that while in judicial custody, the person against whom serious allegations are being made should never be made available to the investigating agency would be to shut out of investigation and put the offenders beyond the reach of the arms of law. Such a narrow construction cannot be placed on the provisions of S. 167 which afford a very wide discretion to the Magistrate or the provisions of NDPS Act which clothe the Additional Sessions Judge with identical powers. What is frawned upon is police custody beyond fifteen days and what is permitted is any other custody beyond the period of fifteen days. The restriction on the term by limiting it to fifteen days would be only in respect of police custody and not the other custody and in proper cases it would be open to the Magistrate or the Additional Sessions Judge or the Special Court to pass orders remanding the offenders to any other custody besides the police custody.
11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 21st August, 1989 has expressed certain apprehensions which may be extracted here.
'Once the accused is produced before this Court from jail the responsibility of the authorities ceases in connection with the accused, and till such time that the accused remains in Court, he remains in custody of the Court and it is the Court which has the responsibility for protection of that accused and such other requirements. If the accused is handed over to the Customs Officer and while he is on his way, he may be shot at and killed, he may jump and abscond, he can be ill-treated or assaulted by officers during the custody, he may assault customs officer and all these things may happen while he is in the custody of this court.'
All these apprehensions appear to me to be unreal. The person who is in-charge of the investigation is a gazetted Officer in view of the provisions of S. 41 of NDPS Act and if the custody of the accused is handed over to him, he would be responsible for the safety of the accused as well as for the damage that the offender is likely to cause while in his custody and if he gets the custody of the accused under the orders of the Court, he would evidently be accountable to the Court in every matter concerning the accused and in appropriate cases, it would be for the Court to decide whether the trust reposed in the investigating officer has been properly discharged. It would be entirely wrong to view every act of the investigating agency with suspicion and it must be remembered that when statutorily responsibility is reposed on the investigating officers, they are expected to act honestly and in good faith. If they abuse their position, the Court can always protect the accused and take suitable action against the defaulting officer.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the position that certain statements made by the respondents have been rejected and that in these circumstances, they cannot be handed over to the Customs Officers for further investigation. Normally this caution is exercised in relation to a person who has made a confession or offers to make a confession and refused to do so and this bar normally would not apply to the officers other than police officers who ask for the custody of the accused persons, though it would be the duty of the Magistrate and the Judge to give proper consideration to such grievances when they are made while passing orders for granting or refusing custody to the investigating agency, but on that count alone it cannot be said that no such power is vested in the Magistrate or the Additional Sessions Judge. In the present case, I find that having regard to the enormous quantity of drug seized the astronomical value of the contraband, and the deleterious effect the consumption of such drugs have on the society, it was necessary that the Customs Officers should have been given custody of the accused persons.
12. While setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is directed that the Additional Sessions Judge should grant custody of the respondents to the Customs authorities initially for a period of seven days and thereafter consider whether further remand to that custody is necessary. Rule made absolute in these terms.
13. The learned counsel for the respondents urges that this order should be stayed for a period of fifteen days for enabling him to approach the Supreme Court as the matter involves an important question of law. The request is rejected.
14. While setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is directed that the Additional Sessions Judge should grant permission to the Customs authorities to take the respondents from judicial custody for the purposes of investigation from 11-00 a.m. to 5-00 p.m. and restore them to judicial custody initially for a period of seven days and thereafter consider whether any further remand is necessary. Rule made absolute in these terms if any further directions are necessary.
15. Order accordingly.