Holding

Once a charge‑sheet is filed and cognizance is taken, the statutory right to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC ceases, and any post‑cognizance remand must be under Section 309(2) CrPC.

Summary

The CBI filed an FIR against Dinesh Dalmia and three companies for alleged fraud and filed a charge‑sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC after Dalmia had absconded to the United States. Cognizance was taken, and Dalmia was arrested on a non‑bailable warrant; the CBI repeatedly sought judicial custody of him under Section 167(2) CrPC, while Dalmia applied for statutory bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) after 60 days of custody. The trial court rejected bail, the Sessions Court allowed a revision in Dalmia’s favour, but the High Court set aside that order. The Supreme Court examined whether a charge‑sheet filed when the accused was absconding was illegal and whether the proviso to Section 167(2) remained available after a charge‑sheet and cognizance. The Court held that a charge‑sheet is a final report, cognizance can be taken even if the accused is absconding, and once a charge‑sheet is filed the right to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) ceases, even if further investigation under Section 173(8) continues. Consequently, the appellant had no statutory right to bail and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of the charge‑sheet and cognizance when the accused was absconding
Whether the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC for statutory bail remains applicable after filing of a charge‑sheet and taking cognizance
Whether remand after cognizance should be under Section 309(2) CrPC or can be sought under Section 167(2) CrPC

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 167, s. 173, s. 309
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 409, s. 420, s. 468, s. 471

Subjects

statutory bailSection 167 CrPCSection 309 CrPCcharge‑sheetcognizanceremandfurther investigationinterpretation of statutes

Judgment

A DINESH DALMIA
v. '
C.B.I.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

B (S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss. 167(2), 309(2) and 173(2) & i-

(8)-Remand of accused-Sought uls 167(2) on the plea of further
investigation-After filing of chargesheet and cognizance .thereof having
c been taken while the accused was absconding-After expiry of 60 days from
the date of arrest, accused seeking statutory bail under proviso to s. I 67
(2)-During pendency of the application seeking bail, Police seeking remand
u/s 309(2)-Statutory bail denied-In Revision, bail granted-But denied by
High Court-On appeal, plea that charge-sheet and act of taking cognizance
D was illegal; and that accused entitled to bail-Held: Accused was not entitled
to the statutory bail-Jn the facts of the case and prevailing law, chargesheet .
and act of taking cognizance cannot be held to be illegal-Power of Court
to direct remand of accused u/s 167(2) would be attracted where cognizance
has not been taken and that u/s 309(2) would be attracted where cognizance
has been taken-In the instant case, cognizance having been taken s. 309
E (2) would be attracted-Right uls I 67 (2) ceases on filing of charge-sheet u/
s 173(2)-lt does not revive only because further investigation is pending
within the meaning of s. 173(8)-The conduct of Police in seeking remand
under wrong provision would be of no consequence, if in effect the order of
remand was being passed by the Court u/s 309(2).
F t
Interpretation of Statutes-Held: A statute must be read in its entirety-
Construction thereof should be made in such a manner, so as to give effect
to all the provisions thereof

CBI lodged FIR against appellant and three Companies on a complaint
G from Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). As the appellant was
evading arrest, non-bailable warrant was issued. On completion of
r
investigation charge-sheet was submitted in terms of s. 173(2) Cr.P.C.,
wherein name of the appellant alongwith the Companies, was mentioned. _,_
Although statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. accompanied the charge-sheet, the

H 1124
.)......_·

DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.I. 1125
relevant documents could not be filed as the same were sent for examination A
to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD). However the same
were filed before the arrest of the appellant. Cognizance was taken by the
Magistrate. After arrest, appellant was produced before the Magistrate and
his police custody was granted. After extention, he was handed over to Police
custody. CBI on the plea of further investigation sought judicial custody of B
the appellant u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C., on four occasions. Appellant, on expiry of 60
days from the date of his arrest filed an application for statutory bail in terms
of proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., on the premises that no further charge-
sheet in respect of the investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. had been filed. During
pendency of the application, CBI filed application seeking remand of the
appellant u/s 309(2) Cr.P.C. The application for statutory bail was rejected. C
Revision Petition of the appellant was allowed. But at the behest of CBI, the
order in Revision was over-turned by High Court.

In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the charge-sheet against
him and cognizance taken thereupon was illegal and invalid and thereby a
valuable right to be released on bail had been taken away; and that even if the D
charge-sheet were legal, his right u/s. 167(2) Cr.P.C., continued to remain
available in the facts of the case.

CBI contended that charge-sheet having been submitted and cognizance
having been taken on that basis, the only provision applicable for remand of
the accused would be Section 309(2) Cr.P.C. Thus even if wrong provision E
has been mentioned by CBI in its applications for remand, the same by itself
would not render the order of the court invalid.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. A charge sheet is a final report within the meaning of Section F
173 (2) Cr.P.C. It is filed so as to enable the court concerned to apply its mind
as to whether cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not.
The report is ordinarily filed in the form prescribed therefor. One of the
requirements for submission of a police report is whether any offence appears
G
1 to have been committed and, if so, by whom. In some cases, the accused having
not been arrested, the investigation against him may not be complete. There
may not be sufficient material for arriving at a decision that the absconding
accused is also a person by whom the offence appears to have been committed.
If the investigating officer finds sufficient evidence even against such an
accused who had been absconding, law does not require that filing of the
H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 9 S.C.R.

A charge sheet must await the arrest of the accused. [Para 15] [1135-B-D)

2. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that it is to be
read in its entirety. Construction of a statute should be made in a manner so
as ·to give effect to all the provisions thereof. Remand of an accused is
contemplated by the Parliament at two stages; pre-cognizance and post -
B cognizance. Even in the same case depending upon the nature of charge sheet
filed by the investigating officer in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. a cognizance
may be taken as against the person against whom an offence is said to have
been made out and against whom no such offence has been made out even when
investigation is pending. So long a charge sheet is not filed within the meaning
C of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. investigation remains pending. It,
however, does not preclude an investigating officer, to carry on further
investigation despite filing of a police report, in terms of Sub-section (8) of
Section 173 Cr.P.C. fPara 28] (1140-D-Fl

Central Bureau cf Investigation, Special Investigation Cell - I, New
D Delhiv.AnupamJ. Kulkarni, (1992) 3SCC141; State Through CBiv. Dawood
Ibrahim Kaskar and Ors., 12000) IO SCC 438; and Sanjay Dutt v. State
Through CB.I. Bombay (II), (1994] 5 SCC 410, referred to.

3. The statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in regard to an
investigation leading to filing of final form under Sub-section (2) of Section
E 173 and further investigation contemplated under Sub-section (8) thereof.
Whereas only when a charge sheet is not filed and investigation is kept
pending, benefit of proviso appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C.
would be available to an offender; once, however, a charge sheet is filed, the
said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only because a ·further
F investigation remains pending within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of
Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Para 29) (1140-G; 1141-Al

K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and Ors., I J 9911 3 sec 655, followed.

4. Concededly, the investigating agency is required to complete
G investigation within a reasonable time. The ideal period therefor would be 24
hours, but, in some cases, it may not be practically possible to do so. The
Parliament, therefore, thought it fit that remand of the accused can be sought
for in the event investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, as the
r
case may be. But, if the same is not done within the stipulated period, the
same would not be detrimental to the accused and, thus, he, on the expiry
H
DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.I. 1127
thereof would be entitled to apply for bail, subject to fulfilling the conditions A
prescribed therefor. Such a right of bail although is a valuable right but the
same is a conditional one; the condition precedent being pendency of the
investigation. (Para 191 (1136-E-GI

5. It is true that ordinarily all documents accompany the charge sheet.
But, in this case, some documents could not be filed which were not in the B
possession of the CBI and the same were with the GEQD. The same were filed
before the arrest of the appellant. Appellant does not contend that he has been
prejudiced by not filing of such documents with the charge sheet. No such
plea in fact had been taken. Even if all the documents had not been filed, by
reason thereof submission of charge sheet itself does not become vitiated in C
law. The charge sheet has been acted upon as an order of cognizance had
been passed on the basis thereof. Appellant has not questioned the said order
taking cognizance of the offence. Validity of the said charge sheet is also not
in question. (Para 181 (1136-B-D)

6. Apart from the appellant, three companies, registered and D
incorporated under the Companies Act, have been shown as accused in the
charge sheet. It was, therefore, not necessary for the CBI to file a charge
sheet so as to curtail the right of the accused to obtain bail. It is, therefore,
not a case where by reason of such submission of charge sheet the appellant
has been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. (Para 20) (1137-B, CJ
E
7. It is also not a case of the appellant that he had been arrested in course
of further investigation. A warrant of arrest had already been issued against
him. The learned Magistrate was conscious of the said fact while taking
cognizance of the offence. The court takes cognizance of an offence and not
the offender. (Para 21] (1137-C, DJ
F
Anil Saran v. State of Bihar and Anr., (1995) 6 SCC 142 and Popular
Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296,
referred to.

8. The power of a court to direct remand of an accused either in terms G
of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. or Sub-section (2) of Section 309
thereof will depend on the stages of the trial. Whereas Sub-section (2) of
Section 167 Cr.P.C. would be attracted in a case where cognizance has not
been taken, Sub-section (2) of Section 309 Cr.P.C. would be attracted only
after cognizance has been taken. [Para 22] (1137-E)
H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 9 S.C.R.

A 9. The appellant had no statutory right to be released on bail. The
magistrate could not have declared the charge-sheet illegal and recall his
own order of taking cognizance. It is also well-settled that ifa thing cannot
be done directly, the same cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. If the
order taking cognizance exists, irrespective of the conduct of the CBI in
B treating the investigation to be open or filing applications for remand of the
accused to police custody or judicial remand under Sub-section (2) of Section
167 Cr.P.C. stating that the further investigation was pending, would be of no
consequence if in effect and substance such orders were being passed by the
Court in exercise of its power under Sub-section (2) of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
(Paras 23 and 30) (1141-B; 1137-F-H; 1138-A)
c Ada/at Prasad v. Roop/al Jindal and Ors., (20041 7 SCC 338;
Subramanium Sethuraman v. State ofMaharashtra and Anr., (2004) 8 SCALE
733; and Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
Ors., JT (2007) 5 SC 529, relied on.

D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1249 of
2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2006 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Cr!. R.C. No. 1173 of 2006.

E Mukul Rohatgi, Ranjeet Kumar, C.M. Nayar, Siddarath Luthra, Rajendra
Singhvi, Maitreyi Singhvi, A. Krishana, Sanjay Abbot and E.C. Agrawala for
the Appellant.

A. Sharan, ASG, Amit Anand Tiwari, Abhishek Kumar and P.
Parmeswaran for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal
G Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of Section 309
thereof falls for consideration of this Court in this appeal which arises out of r
an order dated22.12.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 1173 of 2006 setting aside an order
dated 25.08.2006 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in
R.C. 4/(E)/03/BSC/FC/CBI New Delhi in Crl. R.C. No. 115 of2006 whereby an
H
DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.I. [SINHA, J.] 1129

order dated 30.05.2006 passed by the Special Court in Crl. M.P. No. 788 of2006 A
in C.C. No. 19189 of 2005 was set aside.

3. Appellant was proceeded against for commission of offences under
Sections 409, 420 and l20B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) lodged a first information B
report against the appellant and three companies registered and incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 on a complaint made by the Securities and
Exchange Board of India. Indisputably, Appellant was named therein. He was,
however, evading arrest. He had gone to the United States. The learned
Magistrate by an order dated 14.02.2005, on a prayer made in that behalf by
the CBI, issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against him. Upon completion C
of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate in terms
of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. In the said charge sheet, name
of the appellant appeared in Column No. 1 along with the said three companies.
Name of one of the companies named in the first information report, viz.,
Mis. DSQ Software Ltd., has been shown in Column No. 2. In the said charge D
sheet, it was stated:

"Investigation has revealed that Sl1. Dinesh Dalmia, the then Managing
Director & Custodian of properties, including shares, of Mis. DSQ
Software Ltd., fraudulently got dematerialized un-allotted and unlisted
share ofDSQ Software Ltd. In the name of three entities namely New E
Vision Investment Ltd., UK; Dinesh Dalmia Technology Trust and Dr.
Suryanil Ghosh, Trustee-Softec Corporation and thereafter these
shares were sold in the market and the proceeds of sale of said shares
were credited in the accounts of Mis. DSQ Holdings Ltd., Mis. Hulda
Properties and Trade Ltd. and Mis. Powerflow Holding and Trading
Pvt. Ltd. and thereby dishonestly misappropriated and cheated F
investors including existing share holders and obtained undue gain to
the tune of Rs. 5,94,88,37,999/-.

Thus, Sh. Dinesh Dalmia has committed fraudulent acts prima
face disclosing commission of offences of cheating, breach of trust, G
forgery and using forged documents as genuine by getting wrongful
gain in the matter of partly paid shares. DSQ Software Ltd. in the name
of New Vision Investment Ltd., UK; unallotted shares in the name of
Dinesh Dalmia Technology Trust and "Dr. Suryanil Ghosh Trustee
Softec Corporation". M/s. DSQ Holdings Ltd., Mis. Hulda Properties
H
l 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 9 S.C.R.

A and Trades Ltd. and Mis. Powerflow Holding & Trading Pvt Ltd have
also committed offence of cheating in the matter of above mentioned
shares and the above facts disclose commission of offences punishable
Uls 409, 420, 468 and 471 !PC on the part of accused Sh. Dinesh
Dalmia (A- I) and U/ 420 !PC on the part of accused companies namely
¥Is DSQ Holdings Ltd (A-2) represented by Sh. Dinesh Dalmia,
B Director, Mis. Hulda Properties & Trades Ltd (A-3) represented by Sh
Ashok Kumar Shanna, Director & Mis Powerflow Holding & Trading
Pvt Ltd (A-4) represented by Sh Ashok Kumar Shanna, Director.

During investigation the allegations against DSQ Software Ltd
could not be- substantiated and hence it is not being charge sheeted.
c
Accused Dinesh Dalmia is evading arrest and has absconded to
USA. He has not joined investigation. Ld. ACMM, Egmore Chennai
issued an open ended non-bailable warrant of his arrest and a Red
Comer Notice (RCN) has been issued against him through INTERPOL
for locating him. His examination is necessary in this case as only he
D
alone is aware of the end use of the funds.

Further investigation on certain vital points including end u!>e of
the funds, foreign investigation in the matter of genuineness of New
Vision Investment Ltd and as shown as its authorized signatory, Sh.
Hitendra Naik, in United Kingdom and other foreign investigation are
E
_still continuing and after completion of the remaining investigation
the report of the same will be filed under section 173(8) Cr. PC in due
course.

The questioned documents have been sent to GEQD for expert
F opinion, it is still awaited. After being obtained, the same will be
submitted with additional list of documents.

The list of witnesses and list of documents are enclosed herewith
and additional list of documents ~ witnesses, if necessary, will be
submitted in due course.
G It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to
take cognizance of the offences, issue the process to secure the
presence of the accused and they may be tried according to law." '

5. Although statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of the
H Code accompanied the charge sheet, the relevant documents could not be
DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.I. [SINHA, J.] 1131
filed as they were sent for examination before the Government Examiner of A
Questioned Documents (GEQD). Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on
the said charge sheet by an order dated 25.10.2005. It was specifically noted
that non-bailable warrant as against the appellant was still pending.

The CBI contended that the appellant entered into India illegally as no
endorsement had been made in his passport showing a valid travel undertaken B
by him. He was produced before a Magistrate in Delhi for transit remand to
Chennai. An order to tha~ effect was passed. On 14.02.2006, when he wa.>
produced before the concerned Magistrate at. Chennai, an order for police
custody was prayed for and was granted till 24.02.2006. Another application
was filed for further police custody for four days on 21.02.2006. An application C
was also filed seeking permission to conduct brain mapping, polygraph test,
on the appellant which was allowed.

6. Appellant had been handed over to the police for conducting
investigation till 8.03.2006. He, however, was remanded to judicial custody till
14.03.2006 by an order dated 9.03.2006. Allegedly, on the plea that further D
investigation was pending, the CBI prayed for and obtained order of remand
to judicial custody from the learned Magistrate on 14.03.2006, 28.03.2006,
10.04.2006 and 28.04.2006. All the applications were made purported to be
under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. -

7. Appellant, on expiry of 60 days from the date of his arrest, filed an E
application for statutory bail purported to be in terms of the proviso appended
to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code on the premise that no further
charge sheet in respect of the investigation under Sub-section (8) of Section
173 of the Code has been filed. When the said application was pending
consideration, the CBI sought for his remand in judicial custody under Sub- F
,... section (2) of Section 309 thereof.

The said application for statutory bail was rejected by the learned
Magistrate opining:

"... Because, in this case, the petitioner was arrested on the basis of G
Non-bailable warrant issued by this court, after taking cognizance of
the offences in charge sheet. Further, the respondent side has clearly
stated that before further investigation commenced on 14.2.2006, the
petitioner was remanded to police custody, hence he was in the
custody of the court since his arrest on 12.2.2006. Therefore, after
H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R

A expiry of the police custody, the petitioner should be remanded to
judicial custody u/s 309(2) Cr. P.C. and not u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. However,
in this case, by mistake, provision of law under which the petitioner
was remanded to judicial custody was mentioned as Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. in the remand report. In fact for remanding an accused in
custody against whom charge sheet has already been filed and an
B application for remand is not required. Hence this court is inclined to
state that the petitioner was remanded to police custody u/s 167(2)
Cr.P.C. and thereafter was remanded to judicial custody u/s 309 Cr.P.C."

The learned Magistrate further took note of the fact that two other
C cases have been registered against him by the Calcutta Police.
8. A revision application filed by the appellant herein before the learned
Sessions Judge was allowed inter a/ia relying on or on the basis of the
decision of this Court in State Through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and
Ors., [2000] 10 SCC 438 stating:
D "23. Taking into consideration of all these facts and circumstances of
the case and principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
I feel that in view of the positive conduct of the respondent in relying
upon Section 167(2) <:::r. P.C. in all their applications (up to the filing
of the bail application), the petitioner can also rely upon it and seek
E necessary orders thereunder, that the respondent is now estopped
from pleading opposite to their own previous conduct and that Section
309(2) cannot be applied to a person like the petitioner, who was
arrested in the course of further investigation."

9. The CBI moved the High Court thereagainst. Its application was
F registered as Crl. R.C. No. 1173 of 2006. The decision of the learned Sessions
Judge was over-turned by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment
stating:

"Because of this interpretation the learned Magistrate is empowered
to give "Police custody". Once police custody is completed the accused
G reverts back to judicial custody of post cognizance stage. Even if
further investigation continues as far as such accused are concerned
scope of section 167 comes to an end. "Subject to fulfillment. of the
requirement and the limitation of Section 167" only refers to the
investigation during "police custody" especially when an ·-accused is
in remand under Section 167. When further investigation keeping him
H
DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.l. [SINHA, J.J 1133
in police custody during post cognizance stage is completed, the A
remand of an accused is only governed under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Under such circumstances, invoking of proviso to section 167 and
demand for a benevolent provision is inapplicable to such accused.

27. The object of enactment of such proviso in Section 167 Cr. P.C.
is to have control over a lethargic, delayed investigation, especially B
keeping a person in custody. It is a specific direction to the police to
collect material without any delay. If sufficient incriminating materials
are not collected against the accused with the crime alleged. It
safeguards the interest of such accused person. If materials are collected
and reported to the Magistrate within the period stipulated by filing C
charge sheet, then the scope of proviso to section 167 extinguishes
and an accused can claim bail only on merit.

28. In the instant case most of the materials have been collected. The
materials to connect the accused with the crime is already available.
Final conclusion also was reached and charge sheet filed. However, D
custodial interrogation of the accused felt necessary. Such
interrogation entrusting him in police custody was done between
12.02.2006 and 27.02.2006 cognizance of the case was taken much
earlier on 25.10.2005. Only for custodial interrogation he was entrusted
under Section 167 to the CBI. Section 167 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only
for such purpose in a post cognizance case. Otherwise a remand must E
be made only under Section 309 Cr.P.C. If a wrong provision is quoted
for further remand under section 167 Cr.P .C. instead of 309 one cannot
claim the benefit of a benevolent proviso to section 167. Proviso to
section 167 is available only to safeguard an innocent person or a
person against whom no materials collected in spite of detaining him F
for 60190 days. In the instant case abundant materials have been
already collected and final report filed. Two years after the cognizance
he was apprehended. He was entrusted with police custody only for
custodial interrogation. Further investigation may be pending to comply
with other formalities. There may be delay to receive opinion from
experts and such delay cannot be taken advantage of by invoking the G
proviso to section 167 Cr.P.C."

10. Appellant is, thus, before us.

11. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, has raised two contentions before us: H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 9 S.C.R.

A (i) The charge sheet filed against the appellant and cognizance taken
thereupon is illegal and invalid and by reason thereof, a valuable
right of the appellant to be released on bail has been taken away.
(it) Even if the charge sheet is legal, the right of the appellant under
Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code continued to remzin
B available in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Elaborating his submission, Mr. Rohatgi urged that a police report must
strictly conform to the requirements laid down under Section 173 of the Code
and the prescribed form for submission of the final form wherefrom it would ..
be evident that no charge sheet can be filed upon purported completion of
C investigation against the appellant as he had been absconding. As the CBI
kept investigation as against the appellant open, as would appear from the
charge sheet itself as also the prayers made and granted by the learned
Magistrate which is permissible only under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of
the Code, no chargesheet in law can be said to have been filed so far as the
appellant was concerned. The CBI moreover itself proceeded on the basis that
D the investigation against the appellant had been pending and only in that
view of the matter applications for remand were filed under Sub-section (2)
of Section 167 of the Code. It was contended that only when the appellant
applied for grant of statutory bail, the CBI changed its stand and filed an
application for remand under Sub-section (2) of Section 309 .of the Code.
E
12. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
on behalf of the CBI, on the other hand, would submit that a charge sheet
having been submitted before the Court and cognizance having been taken
on the basis thereof, the only provision applicable for remand of the accused
would be Sub-section (2) of Section 309 of the Code and, thus, even if a
F wrong provision has been mentioned by CBI in their applications for remand,
the same by itself would not render the order of the Court invalid in law.

13. In this ca~e the CBI took a conscious decision to file charge sheet
against the appellant. His name was shown in Column No. I thereof although
he was absconding. It was found that a case for trial has been made out.
G There were five accused against whom allegations were made by the
complainant. One of the companies was not sent for trial as nothing was
found against it. All the other accused named in the first information report
had teen sent for trial.

14. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The said
H
DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.L [SINHA, J.] 1135

power can be exercised only under Section 190(l)(b) of the Code. The learned A
Magistrate noticed the fact, while taking cognizance of the offence, that the
appellant had been absconding and a non-bailable warrant of arrest had been
issued against him.

Whereas the charge sheet was submitted on 24.10.2005, the appellant
was arrested only on 12.02.2006. According to Mr. Sharan, the additional B
documents were filed on 20.01.2006.

15. A charge sheet is a final report within the meaning of Sub-section
(2) of Section 173 of the Code. It is filed so as to enable the court concerned
to apply its mind as to whether cognizance of the offence thereupon should
be taken or not. The report is ordinarily filed in the form prescribed therefor. C
One of the requirements for submission of a police report is whether any
offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom. In some cases,
the accused having not been arrested, the investigation against him may not
be complete. There may not be sufficient material for arriving at a decision
that the absconding accused is also a person by whom the offence appears D
to have been committed. If the investigating officer finds sufficient evidence
even against such an accused who had been absconding, in our opinion, law
does not require that filing of the charge sheet must await the arrest of the
accused.

16. Indisputably, the power of the investigating officer to make a prayer E
for making further investigation in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 is
not taken away only because a charge sheet under Sub-section (2) thereof
has been filed. A further investigation is permissible even if order of cognizance
of offence has been taken by the Magistrate.

17. We may notice that a Constitution Bench of this Court in K. F
Veeraswami v. Union of India and Ors., [1991] 3 SCC 655 stated the law in
the following terms :

"76 ... As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of
Bihar, that the statutory requirement of the report under Section G
173(2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein
are included in the report. This report is an intimation to the magistrate
that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the investigating
officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the Court to
inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent
to the Court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R

A an opinion of the investigating officer that as far as he is concerned
he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the
accused by the Court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with
all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section
175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating
Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must
B be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring
home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the
trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence.

18. It is true that ordinarily all documents ace<ompany the charge sheet.
C But, in this case, some documents could not be fiied which were not in the
possession of the CBI and the same were with the GEQD. As indicated
hereinbefore, the said documents are said to have been filed on 20.01.2006
whereas the appellant was arrested on 12.02.2006. Appellant does not contend
that he has been prejudiced by not filing of such documents with the charge
sheet. No such plea in fact had been taken. Even if all the documents had
D not been filed, by reason thereof submission of charge sheet itself does not
become vitiated in law. The charge sheet has been acted upon as an order
of cognizance had been passed on the basis thereof. Appellant has not
questioned the said order taking cognizance of the offence. Validity of the
said charge sheet is also not in question. '
E Application of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code vis-a-vis Sub-
section (2) of Section 309 must be considered having regard to the
aforementioned factual and legal backdrop in mind.

19. Concededly, the investigating agency is required to complete
F investigation within a reasonable time. The ideal period therefor would be 24
hours, but, in some cases, it may not be practically possible to do so. The ~.

Parliament, therefore, thought it fit that remand of the accused can be sought
for in the event investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, as the
case may be. But, if the same is not done within the stipulated period, the
same would not be detrimental to the accused and, thus, he, on the expiry
G thereof would be entitled to apply for bail, subject to fulfilling the conditions
prescribed therefor.

Such a right of bail although is a valuable right but the same is a
cond;tional one; the condition precedent being pendency of the investigation.
Whether an investigation in fact has remained pending and the investigating
H officer has submitted the charge sheet only with a view to curtail the right
DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.I. [SINHA., J.] I 137
of the accused would essentially be a question of fact. Such a question A
strictly does not arise in this case inasmuch as, according to the CBI, sufficient
materials are already available for prosecution of the appellant. According to
it, further investigation would be inter a/ia necessary on certain vital points
including end use of the funds.

20. Apart from the appellant, three companies, registered and B
incorporated under the Companies Act, have been shown as accused in the
charge sheet. It was, therefore, not necessary for the CBI to file a charge sheet
so as to curtail the right of the accused to obtain bail. It is, therefore, not a
case where by reason of such submission of charge sheet the appellant has
been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever.
c
21. It is also not a case of the appellant that he had been arrested in
course of further investigation. A warrant of arrest had already been issued
against him. The learned Magistrate was conscious of the said fact while
taking cognizance of the offence.
D
It is now well settled that the court takes cognizance of an offence and
not the offender. [See Anil Saran v. State of Bihar and Anr., [1995] 6 SCC
142 and Popular Muthiah v. State, represented by Inspector of Police [2006]
1sec296]

22. The power of a court to direct remand of an accused either in terms E
of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code or Sub-section (2) of Section
309 thereof will depend on the stages of the trial. Whereas Sub-section (2)
of Section 167 of the Code would be attracted in a case where cognizance has
not been taken, Sub-section (2) of Section 309 of the Code would be attracted
only after cognizance has been taken.
F
23. If submission of Mr. Rohatgi is to be accepted, the Magistrate was
not only required to declare the charge sheet illegal, he was also required to
recall his own order of taking cognizance. Ordinarily, he could not have done
so. [See Ada/at Prasad v. Roop/al Jindal and Ors., [2004] 7 SCC 338,
Subramanium Sethuraman v. State ofMaharashtra and Anr., (2004) 8 SCALE G
733 and Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd v. State, Govt. ofNCT of Delhi and Ors.,
JT (2007) 5 SC 529 It is also well-settled that if a thing cannot be done directly,
the same cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. If the order taking
cognizance exists, irrespective of the conduct of the CBI in treating the
investigation to be open or filing applications for remand of the accused to
police custody or judicial remand under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the H
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R

A Code stating that the further investigation was pending, would be of no
consequence if in effect and substance such orders were being passed by the
Court in exercise of its power under Sub-section (2) of Section 309 of the
Code.

24. We, however, have no words to deprecate the stand of the CBI. It
B should have taken a clear and categorical stand in the matter.
We, however, are proceeding on the basis that irrespective of the stand
taken by the CBI, law will prevail. We may notice the law operating in the field
in this behalf.

C 25. In support of the submission in regard to interpretation of Sub-
section (2) of Section 167 and Sub-section (2) of Section 309 of the Code,
strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Rohatgi on Central Bureau of
Investigation, Special Investigation Cell - I, New Delhi v. Anupam J .
. Kulkarni, [1992] 3 SCC 141 and Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (supra).
D, In Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra), the question which inter a/ia arose for
consideration of this Court was as to whether the period of remand ordered
by an Executive Magistrate in terms of Section 57 Jlf the Code should be
computed for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 thereof. This
Court, keeping in view the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 22 of the
E Constitution of India, answered the question in the affirmative. It was held
that a total period of remand during investigation is fifteen days. In that
context, this Court observed:

"... However, taking into account the difficulties which may arise in
completion of the investigation of cases of serious nature the legislature
F added the proviso providing for further detention of the accused for
a period of ninety days but in clear· terms it is mentioned in the
proviso that such detention could only be in the judicial custody.
During this period the police are expected to complete the investigation
even in serious cases. Likewise within the period of sixty days they
are expected to complete the investigation in respect of oth_er offences.
G The legislature however disfavoured even the prolonged judicial
custody during investigation. That is why the proviso lays down that
on the expiry of ninety days or sixty days the accused shall be
released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail..."

H In regard to the question as to whether such an order of remand would
DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.I. [SINHA, J.] 1139
be pennissible in law when an accused is wanted in different cases, the A
answer was again rendered in affirmative. We are not faced with such a
problem in the instant case.

26. On Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (supra), this Court held:

"11. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the remand and the B
custody referred to in the first proviso to the above sub-section are
different from detention in custody under Section 167. While remand
under the fonner relates to a stage after cognizance and can only be
to judicial custody, detention under the latter relates tO the stage of
investigation and can initially be either in police custody or judicial
custody. Since, however, even after cognizance is taken. of an offence C
the police has a power to investigate into it further, which can be
exercised only in accordance with Chapter XII, we see no reason
whatsoever why the provisions of Section 167 thereof would not
apply to a person who comes to be later arrested by the police in
course of such investigation. If Section 309(2) is to be interpreted - D
as has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in Mansuri (supra)
- to mean that after the Court takes cognizance of an offence it cannot
exercise its power of detention in police custody under Section 167
of the Code, the Investigating Agency would be deprived of an
opportunity to interrogate a person arrested during further
investigation, even if it can on production of sufficient materials, E
convince the Court that his detention in its (police) custody was
essential for that purpose. We are therefore of the opinion that the
words "accused if in custody" appearing in Section 309(2) refer and
relate to an accused who was before the Court when cognizance was
taken or when enquiry or trial was being held in respect of hint and F
not to an accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further
.investigation. So far as the accused in the first category is concerned
he can be remanded to judicial custody only in view of Section 309(2),
but he who comes under the second category will be governed by
Section 167 so long as further investigation continues. That necessarily
means that in respect of the latter the Court which had taken cognizance G
of the offence may exercise its power to detain him in police custody,
subject to the fulfilment of the requirements and the limitation of
Section 167."

27. We had noticed the dicta of the Constitution Bench judgment of this
H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R

A Court. At this juncture, we may notice the dicta laid down by this Court in
Sanjay Dutt v. State Through C.B.I. Bombay (II), [1994} 5 SCC 410 wherein
it was held:

"53 ... (2)(b) The 'indefeasible right' of the accused to be released on
bail in accordance with Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with
B Section 167(2) of the CrPC in default of completion of the investigation
and filing of the challan within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra
Vishnu Thakur is a right which enures to, and is enforceable by the
accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and
it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed.
If the accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the
c. period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then
he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on
bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to the
provisions of the CrPC. The right of the accused to be released on
bail after filing of the challan, notwithstanding the default in filing it
D within the time allowed, is governed from the time of filing of the
challan only by the provisions relating to the grant of bail applicable
at that stage."

28. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that it is to
be read in its entirety. Construction of a statute should be made in a manner
E so as to give effect to all the provisions thereof. Remand of an accused is
contemplated by the Parliament at two stages; pre-cognizance and post -
cognizance. Even in the same case depending upon the nature of charge
sheet filed by the investigating officer in terms of Section 173 of the Code,
a cognizance may be taken as against the person against whom an offence
F is said to have been made out and ag_ainst whom no such offence has been
made out even when investigation is pending. So long a charge sheet is not
filed within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code,
investigation remains pending. It, however, does not preclude an investigating
officer, as noticed hereinbefore, to carry on further investigation despite filing
of a police report, in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code.
G
29. The statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in regard to an
investigation leading to filing of final form under Sub-section (2) of Section
173 ·and further investigation contemplated under Sub-section (8) thereof.
Whereas only when a charge sheet is not filed and investigation is kept
pending, benefit of proviso appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the
H
DINESH DALMIA v. C.B.I. [SINHA, J.) 1141
Code would be available to an offender; once, however, a charge sheet is A
filed, the said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only because a
further investigation remains pending within the meaning of Sub-section (8)
of Section 173 of the Code.

30. The High Court, in our opinion, is correct in its finding that, in the
fact situation obtaining, the appellant had no statutory right to be released B
on bail.

31. We do not, thus, find any infirmity in the judgment of the High
Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

KKT. Appeal dismissed. C