ORDER 1. Heard the learned Government advocate (crl.side) appearing for the petitioner. 2. In the application filed by the revision petitioner before the Court below, it is stated that on 4.6.2012, the Sub-Inspector of Police, ‘Q’ Branch appeared before the police station and filed a special report alongwith complaint stating that a case was registered against the accused in Crime No. 2 of 2012 under Sections 120 (b), 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 read with 12 (1) (b), 12 (1A) (A)(B), 12 (2) of Passport Act 1967. It transpired that the accused created false records of passports and fecilitated the co-accused to go to Ceylon. The prime accused Ajith @ Indrajith and Sundararajan got anticipatory bail from Madras High Court. Crime No. 1/13 was registered by Pudukottai, ‘Q’ Branch police who arrested the accused Dharma and Gowthaman. They have given a confession statement through which the petitioner came to know that they created false passports so as to enable the co-accused and others to go to foreign countries. Co-accused, arrayed as respondents were arrested by the police on 24.2.2013. They were produced before the Court under PT warrant on 21.3.2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur. The learned Judicial Magistrate remanded them till 2.4.2013. To track down hide outs of the other accused, to collect the evidence, the co-accused arrested before the Court have to be taken into police custody. They ought to be taken to Madras, Delhi, Hyderabad and hence police custody of seven days may be allowed. The petitioner undertakes to provide necessary food, medical treatment and other facilities to the accused. Copies of the petition was served upon the accused and they appeared before the Court and sworn statements were recorded. 3. The Court below has dismissed the petition for the reason that there is no allegation to the effect that the accused felicitated the others to get passport but they only arranged for getting visa for other accused, that arranging for visa is not a crime and it is not stated that in what way the first accused is liable for the accusation. Further, the order of the Court below goes to the effect that even though the petitioner had got opportunity to enquire the accused when arrest was recorded. Further, the order of the Court below goes to the effect that even though the petitioner had got opportunity to enquire the accused when arrest was recorded. On execution of PT warrant, it is surprising to note that why that opportunity was skipped, that there is no particulars regarding the absconding of the accused and what are the materials to be gathers. No justification is made on the part of the petitioner to request for police custody. 4. Point for consideration arisen in this case is ‘whether the petitioner has to be permitted to take custody of the respondents for further investigation ? Point : 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons adduced by the Court below for rejection of request are not sustainable. As far as the ground on which the request was turned down, in the view of this Court, such anticipation is pre-mature. The investigation in this case is in nascent stage. Hence, in this stage, no particulars of absconding accused and the details of materials could be expected. Only if the petitioner is permitted to take police custody of the accused, then they could get further lead this case. Investigation has to be shown progress only on the information supplied by the accused. Hence, in the given situation, this Court is of the firm notion that the petitioner has to be permitted to take police custody of the accused. 6. As far as the period of custody to be allowed is concerned, already thirteen full days have gone and only one day is remaining. The learned Government advocate (crl.side) would submit that upto 15 days from the date of first remand, the police can make a request for custody for remand period ending within 15 days and whatever be the duration of first remand, the rights of the police is available till the end of 15 days as far as the claim for police custody is concerned and in these circumstances, this Court may allow 3 days police custody upto 4.4.2013 on which date, 15 days from the date of first remand by the Judicial Magistrate is supposed to end. The argument of the learned Government advocate (Crl.side) could not be countenanced for the reason that even though the Judicial Magistrate orders first remand of the accused he is supposed/expected to make the judicial remand for 15 days period and in case, if he passes an order restricting the period for remand to an earlier date, first remand ends on that date and the period of judicial custody commences from the date of second remand. The duration of first remand is “police custody”. The police is entitled to make a request to the Court within the period of first remand and they are precluded from placing the request for police custody after the judicial custody of the accused starts. Hence, the petitioner can be permitted to take custody of the accused for the remaining last day i.e., on 2.4.2013. 7. In view of the above said observations and conclusions of this Court, this Court is of the impression that since the police custody of the accused in this case ends on 2.4.2013 the petitioner has got only one day alone in the first period of remand for police custody. They are entitled to take the accused for police custody for only one day on 2.4.2013. This point is answered as indicated. 8. In fine, the revision is disposed of permitting the petitioner to take police custody of the accused for one day i.e., on 2.4.2013. The petitioner should make a further request to the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur by filing the same alongwith a copy of this order on 2.4.2013 at 10.30 a.m. and the Juducial Magistrate, Thiruvarur is directed to permit the petitioner to take police custody of the accused for one day on 2.4.2013 as per procedure. The petitioner shall produce the accused before the said Court before 5.45 p.m. on 2.4.2013, for further remand. The petitioner shall bear in mind the undertaking given in the request that they should not subject the accused to any sort of harassment, would provide food, accommodation and medical treatment, if required, at the cost of the Government. Petition disposed of.