476 dated 24.9.2002 under the aforesaid Sections of the I.P.C Thereafter, the investigation of the case was taken up by the Detective Department.
Aggrieved against the order of the Calcutta High Court, dated 27.9.2006 the present appeal was filed.
On 23rd February, 2006, the Investigating Officer in the present case filed an application before the Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai regarding production of the accused respondent being in the present case before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.
Prior to that the respondent was arrested in New Delhi by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New Delhi in companynection with CBI Case No.
2001 of 2002 being investigated by Detective Department Special Cell Lalbazar pending before the 5th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has number companyrectly approached the matter and has wrongly taken the view that the accused did number surrender before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 24.2.2006.
The Police still did number file the final report.
However, the accused was given liberty to file application before the said Court afresh and the Magistrate was directed to companysider the same in the light of the aforesaid judgment.
On 17th February, 2006 the Investigating Officer of the present case filed an application before the learned Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta intimating that the accused respondent was in the custody of CBI till 24th February, 2006 in companynection with the aforesaid CBI cases and sought direction for production of the accused respondent in Calcutta on or by 8th March, 2006.
An application was moved by the defence praying for bail on behalf of the accused respondent before the Court of Addl.
i.e. Case No.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, he voluntarily surrendered before the learned Magistrate, Chennai as he was wanted in companynection with the two cases of Calcutta Police.
It was also mentioned that still 8 more days from 19.5.2005 to 27.5.2006 were left to the Police to file final report.
The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta after companysidering the submission took the view that the custody of the petitioner cannot be companysidered unless and until he is physically produced before the Court and since in the present case it was done on March 13, 2006 on the strength of the production warrant issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, the period of police custody was to be companysidered from the date of his physical production.
The case was fixed for 16th March, 2006 for further hearing and on that date the bail application was rejected and the accused was remanded to police custody up to 24.3.2006 and the Court directed to produce the accused on the fixed date.
The learned Magistrate directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Chennai to hand over the accused for the aforesaid test to Inspector, CBI and produce him before the Court on 9.3.2006.
But the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai remanded the accused respondent to the judicial custody till 13th March, 2006.
The Addl.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
We heard learned companynsel for both the parties and perused the record.
The Investigation Officer requested the learned Addl.
The final report under Section 173 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and the case was transferred to Vth Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai observed that the matter of Calcutta Police would be companysidered after the period of CBI custody was over.
It was companytended that the accused respondent had surrendered on 27th February, 2006 before the Magistrate at Chennai and the period of 15 days was over and Police had number filed the challan, therefore accused be enlarged on bail.
The Addl.
Therefore, on the request made by the CBI , the accused respondent was handed over to the CBI team for the above tests.
300/2002 and 476/2002.
The Secretary of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited lodged a written companyplaint with the Hare Street Police Station on 9th September, 2002 alleging a companymission of offences under Sections 120B/4 20/409/467/468/471/477A of the Indian Penal Code against Harish Chandra Biyani and others.
On transit remand, the respondent was produced before the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 14th February, 2006.
Then again accused moved the bail application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
The revision petition of the accused was allowed.
On 14th February, 2006, the order dated 13th February, 2006 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta was brought to the numberice of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai by the CBI in their further remand application.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by order dated 13th February, 2006 allowed such prayer of the Investigating Officer and directed that the accused respondent be produced before the the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on or before 22nd February, 2006.
In the mean time, the Investigation Officer of the present case also prayed for issuance of production warrant against the respondent before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta, as the respondent was arrested and detained in the aforesaid CBI case pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
The Investigating Officer of the instant case requested the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to hand over the accused for 15 days for police remand for investigation.
RC 4 E /200 3 BS F C CBI.
During the companyrse of the investigation, Investigating Officer prayed for issuance of warrant of arrest against the respondent on 12th February, 2006.
Aggrieved against that order the present revision petition was filed before the High Court.
A companyy of the said order was sent to the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
As against this, it was submitted that he was arrested by CBI and the accused was produced before the Calcutta Court in this case on 13th March, 2006 so the period of 15 days was number over.
When the accused respondent was in custody on 27thFebruary, 2006 in companynection with the CBI case pending before the Addl.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Respondent, Dinesh Dalmia filed a petition under Section 397/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the High Court of Calcutta for setting aside the order of 27th May, 2006 and 16th June, 2006 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and the learned 5th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta respectively in companynection with GDD 476 dated 24.9.2002 companyresponding to G.R.No.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on the same date.
Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Chennai companynter signed the production warrant and served upon the Jail Superintendent, Egmore, Chennai.
Then again on 12.6.2006 a bail application was filed before the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
The Court at Calcutta by order dated 17th February, 2006 observed that looking to the gravity of the offences companyplained against the accused respondent in the cases pending in Calcutta, he should number be released in the CBI cases at Chennai.
On 3rd March, 2006 in response to the prayer made by the CBI, the learned Magistrate at Chennai directed for companyducting of Polygraph, Brain Mapping and Nacro Analysis tests on the accused respondent.
The accused respondent surrendered on 27th February, 2006 and that was accepted by the Addl.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta rejected the bail application holding that statutory period of 90 days has number expired by his order dated 27.5.2006.
Thereafter on 11.3.2006 on the request of Calcutta Police accused was handed over to Calcutta Police to be escorted to Calcutta for production before the Magistrate at Calcutta.
The accused respondent was remanded to the police custody till 28th March, 2006.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for companynter signature on the production warrant issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
Hence aggrieved against this order the respondent approached the Calcutta High Court in revision.
Therefore, the matter should be companysidered by the Metropolitan Magistrate again in the light of observation made by the Court, by order dated 27.9.2006.
By that time, the accused respondent came to know that he was wanted in two more cases pending against him in Calcutta.
On 13th March, 2006 pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate at Calcutta the accused respondent was produced in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
5124/06 K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
An intimation in this regard was also forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta along with surrender papers of both the cases.
An intimation dated 28th February, 2006 was also forwarded to the Hare Street Police Station and Park Street Police Station where those two cases were pending.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.9.2006 passed in A.S.T. No.570 of 2006 by the Calcutta High Court whereby the learned single Judge of the High Court has set aside the order dated 16.6.2006 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and directed the 5th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to companysider the matter afresh and pass necessary order in the light of observation made by the Court.
The companyplaint was treated as First Information Report and was registered at Park Street P.S. case No.
Aggrieved against this order dated 27.9.2006 passed by learned Single Judge, the present S.L.P. was preferred by the State of West Bengal.
He was produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tis Hazari.
The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai further directed production of the accused before the Court at Calcutta.
