Magistrate may not act as ‘post office’ for police custody pleas

Case pertains to ATM theft of over ₹30L

Dismissing a revision petition against the denial of police custody of three accused in an ATM theft case, the court of an Additional Sessions Judge here has remarked that “judicial magistrate may not act as a post office” and “the court is always empowered and legally required also to check the genuineness of the request of the police custody”.

The matter pertains to alleged theft of ₹38.86 lakh from the ATM booth of a private bank at Caterpuri village on September 10 last year. An FIR was registered at Palam Vihar police station in this connection.

The police recorded the confessional statement of three accused — Raghunath, Sanjeev and Anil — on July 7 and on September 14. However, the Judicial Magistrate In-charge (Gurugram), Kopal, turned down the pleas of the investigation officer (IO) seeking their police custody on both occasions.

Hearing the revision petition against the September 14 order, Additional Sessions Judge Amit Sahrawat observed that the police were seeking the custody of the accused to recover the stolen cash more than a year after the crime. The court also pointed out that the police were seeking custody to demarcate the place of theft, but the site plan was already recorded in their file.

Saying that the two investigation officers in the case had made “clear and deliberate lapse” in making a fair and proper investigation, the judge, in his five-page order, pointed out that the statement of the bank manager and the agency responsible for replenishing the ATM machine were not recorded about the serial number of the notes allegedly stolen.

“Without such statement, any of the recoveries of the currency notes, even if made from the accused, may not be linked with the alleged theft,” the court observed.

The court also remarked that the investigating officers were habitual of recording the confessional statement of the accused at any time and subsequently to seek police custody on the basis of such confessional statement.

Upholding the order by the court of JMIC Komal, Mr. Sahrawat observed that “this court does not see any kind of illegality and irregularity in the order” and directed the Police Commissioner to take action against such “reckless” investigating officers.