P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, hereinafter in short referred to as "code", praying for calling for the records in Crl. M. P. No. 1604/2002 dated 16-5-2002 on the file of Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Tadepahegudem, as confirmed in Crl. RP. No. 32 of 2002 on the file of Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari and quash the same. ( 2 ) THE facts in nutshell are that the respondent/accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 1-5-2002 and subsequent thereto the Inspector of Police filed an application Crl. M. P. No. 1604/2002 for Policecustody of the respondent/accused on 13-5-2002 and the counsel representing the respondent. /accused requested time to file counter and the matter was adjourned to 16-5-2002. It was further stated that the learned Magistrate refused to give the respondent/accused to Police custody as the period of fifteen days contemplated under section 167 (2) of the Code had expired by 15-5-2002. Aggrieved by the said order, crl. R. P. No. 32/2002 on the file of Sessions judge, Eluru was filed and the said Crl. R. P. was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred the present criminal Petition under Section 482 of the code to quash the aforesaid orders. ( 3 ) SMT. K. Sesharajyam, the learned Public prosecutor representing the petitioner had taken me through the order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, tadepallegudem in Crl. M. P. No. 1604/2002 in Crime No. 31/2002 of Chebrolu Police station and also the order passed in crl. R. P. No. 32/2002 made by the Court of session, Westgodavari, at Eluru. The learned public Prosecutor also had contended that the Investigating Officer, Inspector of Police, ganapavaram, filed a memo under Sec. 167 (2) of the Code praying the Court to order accused No. 1 to police custody for five days for interrogation. The learned Public prosecutor had contended that the learned sessions Judge had confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate mechanically. The learned Public prosecutor had contended that the learned sessions Judge had confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate mechanically. The learned Public Prosecutor also had explained the scope, object and ambit of Section 167 of the Code and also Section 57 of the Code and had submitted that having requested time for filing counter, the respondent/accused cannot take advantage of the situation and raise a ground that in view of the specification of the period fifteen days under Sectionl67 (2) of the Code, such custody cannot be given. The learned Public Prosecutor also had contended that this approach of the Courts below definitely is totally erroneous and also against to the spirit and object of section 167 of the Code and if such tactics are permitted the prosecuting agencies will definitely suffer. ( 4 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondent/ accused on the other hand had contended that in view of the bar imposed by section 167 (2) of the Code, there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders made by the Courts below and hence the Criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on mohd. Jahangir v. State of Andhra Pradesh central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. Anupama Kulkarni, Public Prosecutor v. Narayana Reddy, State v. Dharam Pal. ( 5 ) HEARD the counsel and also perused the order impugned in the present Criminal petition. ( 6 ) THE contention that learned Sessions judge, West Godavari had confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate mechanically cannot be accepted for the reason that the learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari at eluru, in Crl. R. P. No. 32/2002 had recorded reasons at paragraph 3 of the order and the said portion of the order reads as hereunder:"the request of the Investigating Officer was rejected by the learned Magistrate mainly on the ground that the respondent was remanded to Judicial custody on 1-5-2002 on his surrender and the period of initial remand was expired by 15-6-2002 and it was not possible for the Magistrate to send the respondent to police custody after the initial period of 15 days remand. Though in his order, the learned magistrate observed that the counsel for the respondent/accused as well as the a. P. P. Gr. Though in his order, the learned magistrate observed that the counsel for the respondent/accused as well as the a. P. P. Gr. II mislead the Court without disclosing the legal position that the accused can be sent to Police custody only within the initial remand period of 15 days, the fact remains that by the time the learned Magistrate passed the order, the remand period of 15 days was expired. The fact that both the counsel somehow got the matter adjourned till the expiration of 15 days may be true or it may be the imagination of the learned magistrate. The respondent/accused is not at all concerned with the tricks played by the Advocate. When the law mandates that remand to Police custody can be ordered only within 15 days of the initial remand, any order passed sending the accused to Police custody beyond the said period is not only illegal but impermissible. Further, in view of the fact viz. , the respondent/accused voluntarily submitted himself to the custody of the Court and was remanded to Judicial custody, it is not appropriate again to send him to police custody merely because he is required by the police for the purpose of interrogation. If the Police want to interrogate the respondent, the same can be done in Jail where the respondent is lodged. "in view of the reasons recorded by the learned sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, it cannot be said that the Court of Session, as revisional Court, had made the impugned order mechanically. I had gone through the orders made by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the order of the learned magistrate and I do not see any illegality or legal infirmity warranting any interference under Section 482 of the Code for the reasons specified infra. ( 7 ) THE facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the counsel for the respondent/accused requested time to file counter and the matter was adjourned to 16-5-2002. The respondent/accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 1-5-2002 and hence the period is beyond fifteen days since the period of fifteen days had expired even by 15-5-2002 as contemplated under Section 167 (2) of the code. The respondent/accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 1-5-2002 and hence the period is beyond fifteen days since the period of fifteen days had expired even by 15-5-2002 as contemplated under Section 167 (2) of the code. Section 167 (2) of the Code reads as hereunder:"the Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time to authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as such magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has not jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that, [ (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in. custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter for the purposes of that Chapter;] (b) no Magistrate shall authorize detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him; (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police. "the words ". . . . . . . . . . for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole. . . . . . . . . . . . . " in subsection (2) of Section 167 the Code assume lot of importance. "the words ". . . . . . . . . . for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole. . . . . . . . . . . . . " in subsection (2) of Section 167 the Code assume lot of importance. Section 57 of the Code deals with persons arrested not to be detained more than 24 hours and the provision reads as here under:"no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate s Court. "in the decision referred (2) supra, it was held that after the expiry of fifteen days, policy custody cannot be permitted unless the accused was also involved in another independent case where the police could seek further police custody within the first initial days of the arrest or surrender. In the decision referred (3) supra, it was held that even in acase of accused surren dering himself before the Magistrate, he cannot be given the police Custody after the expiry of the first fifteen days from the date of surrender. In the decision referred (4) supra, it was held that the Magistrate can alter judicial custody to police custody and vice-versa during the period of fifteen days specified in section 167 (2) of the Code and after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days specified supra, the accused can only be kept in judicial custody or any other custody as may be directed by the Magistrate, but definitely not in Police custody. In the decision referred (1) supra, the same view was expressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The view expressed by this Court in the decisions referred (l),and (3) supra, is in accordance with the provisions of the Code and hence I respectfully follow the said view. ( 8 ) NO doubt, here is a case where the counsel representing the respondent/ accused had requested time and subsequent thereto had raised an objection relating to the bar under Section 167 (2) of the Code. ( 8 ) NO doubt, here is a case where the counsel representing the respondent/ accused had requested time and subsequent thereto had raised an objection relating to the bar under Section 167 (2) of the Code. Keeping in view the object of Section 167 of the Code and also the safeguards provided to the accused which are always considered to be valuable safeguards, I do not think that this situation will alter the legal position in any way and hence I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor in this regard. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed.