Judgment : 1. The petitioner in this Revision petition is the accused in Crime No.118/2013 of Peroorkada Police station registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code as well as counter petitioner in C.M.P.No.397/2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The above C.M.P. was filed by the State represented by K.E.Biju, S/o. Krishnamoorthy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Detachment, Thiruvananthapuram City seeking custody of the Revision petitioner for a period of 10 days from 2/2/2013 for the purpose of investigation in the above-said crime. 2. The consolidated version of the allegations against the Revision petitioner which reveals from the affidavit accompanying the above petition and the statement filed by the above said Assistant Commissioner in this Revision petition is as follows: On 21-1-2013 morning, a Mitsubishi Outlander Luxury Car worth Rs.29,00,072/-, a laptop computer worth Rs.1,05,000/-, a Nokia lumia telephone worth Rs.40,000/- and another Nokia telephone worth Rs.15,000/-, a high beam torch, an original M.B.B.S certificate, some jewellery and a bunch of keys were found stolen from the house of one Mr.Venugopalan Nair, a NRI Industrialist residing in Thiruvananthapuram City. The above house by name 'Vishnu Bhavan' bearing No.TC.3/2468/5 is situating in Muttada Ward of Kawdiar Village, a prime location of Thiruvananthapuram City. On information given by the said Venugopalan Nair, the above crime was registered on the same day at 7.45 a.m. The house had all modern security system including complete night vision perimeter, surveillance camera, an intruder warning system response to sound etc. During the primary investigation itself, the accused was identified with the help of CCTV camera clippings taken from the place of occurrence, as Devendor Singh @Bhandi Chor, S/o.Kripal Singh, the Revision petitioner herein. On further investigation with SCRB, NCRB and Data Bank, it is revealed that the Revision Petitioner has committed the above theft and he is a notorious hard core criminal hailing from New Delhi, having more than 700 burglaries in his credit. On further verification of CCTV camera clippings, it is revealed that the Revision petitioner had reached the place of occurrence by a Maruti Esteem Car bearing No.KA 03-N 2580 driven by him, after parking the said car on the road in front of the house, he jumped over the boundary wall, break opened the glass door of one of the windows and entered inside the house and committed the theft. On investigation about the Maruti Esteem car, it is also revealed that the said car was one which was stolen from another house and after substituting a false number plate, the Revision petitioner himself drove the car and arrived at the place of occurrence. After the commission of the theft, he abandoned the Maruti Esteem car by which he reached there and fled by using Mitsubishi Outlander which was stolen from the above said house. After identification of the Revision petitioner, though police chased him, he drove the car along Krishna Giri-Hosur Inter-state Highway and reached Bangalore. He abandoned the Mitsubishi Outlander car at Kelamangalam, a place in Krishna Giri district. The number plate was found substituted by a false number plate bearing No. TN-74-M-0480. Thereafter, by a hired car he reached Pune, the place from where he was found out and taken into custody on 27-1-2013. At that time he was found in possession of a Tavera Car. After the arrest, he was brought to Thiruvananthapuram by Air India flight under strong surveillance. During the questioning, the Revision petitioner admitted the guilt and produced stolen laptop and mobile phones from his bag. Subsequently he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram on 29-1-2013 at 9.30 a.m. and the court remanded him to judicial custody. 3. On 2-2-2013 a custody application was filed before the court to get the police custody of the Revision petitioner to police. The reason for police custody was to recover gold ornaments, certificates, remote system of the house, the original keys of other vehicles, the actual number plate KL-01-BG-29 and a high beam torch stolen from the house. Though the stolen Mitsubishi car was recovered under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, further investigation with respect to Maruti Esteem car by which the accused reached the place of occurrence, and Tavera car which was found in possession of the Revision petitioner has to be done by interrogating the Revision petitioner and identifying him by a large number of witnesses acquainted with the entire transaction spreading over 3 States. 4. The Revision petitioner filed Annexure 6 objection opposing the application for police custody. The Revision petitioner denied entire allegation against him. According to him, the averments in the affidavit are mere reproduction of the case diary. The allegations are stories cooked up so as to falsely implicate the Revision petitioner in the said crime. 4. The Revision petitioner filed Annexure 6 objection opposing the application for police custody. The Revision petitioner denied entire allegation against him. According to him, the averments in the affidavit are mere reproduction of the case diary. The allegations are stories cooked up so as to falsely implicate the Revision petitioner in the said crime. The Revision petitioner is unaware about scientific and forensic examination by which the Revision petitioner is said to have been identified. The recoveries said to have been effected are absolutely untrue and incorrect. 5. I heard Shri B.A. Aloor, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Asafali, the learned Director General of Prosecutions. 6. The counsel for the Revision petitioner submits that police custody was sought mainly for investigation in connection with a Maruti Esteem Car and another Tavera Car which are involved in other crimes. The order granting police custody to investigate other crimes is illegal and unsustainable under law. According to the learned counsel, now recovery of all material objects are over, so no purpose could be served in the present crime by granting custody of the petitioner to police. The arrest itself was illegal due to the non-production of the Revision petitioner within 24 hours before the concerned Magistrate. The articles which are said to have been stolen away, were recovered from the car itself. The police custody was intended to torture him mentally and physically. 7. The learned Director General of Prosecutions advanced arguments justifying the order under challenge. Director General of Prosecutions submits that the Revision petitioner is a high profile burglar, who involved in more than 700 cases and his area of operation is different States all over India. After the commission of the offence, he fled away through four different States and he should be identified by number of witnesses acquainted with series of act, which form part of the commission of the alleged theft at Thiruvanathapuram. The Mitsubishi Outlander, which was recovered from Krishna Giri alone is not the material object required to be recovered. According to him, custodial interrogation is necessary to collect more evidence so as to prosecute him properly. He further submits that the interest and security of the State is more important than personal liberty of the petitioner. The Mitsubishi Outlander, which was recovered from Krishna Giri alone is not the material object required to be recovered. According to him, custodial interrogation is necessary to collect more evidence so as to prosecute him properly. He further submits that the interest and security of the State is more important than personal liberty of the petitioner. Director General of Prosecutions cited the decision reported in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1768 and submits that at all points the impugned order is justifiable. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. The question to be considered is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order granting custody of the petitioner to police. 9. Going by the records, admittedly the Revision petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody on 29.01.2013, and the petition for police custody was filed on 02.02.2013, asking custody of the Revision petitioner, for a period of 10 days within the period of 15 days from the date of remand. In view of the mandate under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., decision in Budh Sing v. State of Punjab (AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1768) and (2000 (3) KLT SC SN 21), since the custody is sought for within 15 days from the date of first remand, indisputably, the application for police custody is in order and found well maintainable. 10. Though this revision petition is filed on various grounds and several points were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main contention which appears to be considered in this Revision is that the police custody is granted for investigation in different crimes other than the crime in which the accused was arrested and remanded and it is illegal and impermissible. According to the learned counsel, the police custody cannot be granted for investigation in connection with Maruti Esteem car and Tavera Car. Are they different crimes having no connection with crime registered for the theft of Mitsubishi Outlander and other articles from the house of Mr.Venugopalan Nair? According to the learned counsel, the police custody cannot be granted for investigation in connection with Maruti Esteem car and Tavera Car. Are they different crimes having no connection with crime registered for the theft of Mitsubishi Outlander and other articles from the house of Mr.Venugopalan Nair? The specific allegation against the Revision petitioner is that with an intend to commit theft of Mitsubishi Outlander and other articles, from the house of Venugopalan Nair, he reached there by the Maruti Esteem car which was stolen from another house and thereafter abandoned it on the road in front of the house of Venugopalan Nair. Similarly Tavera car is another vehicle which was found in possession of the accused at the time of his arrest and that was one of the vehicles which was used to flee away after the commission of the theft in the house of Venugopalan Nair. I am of the opinion that even though stealing of these two vehicles are registered in different crimes, the act by which these vehicles were stolen immediately before and after the commission of theft would certainly form part of the commission of theft in the house of Venugopalan Nair as these cars were used to reach the place of occurrence and to escape from the place of occurrence. According to definition of 'Act' under Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code, 'Act' denotes as well as series of acts as single Act. Similarly according to definition of offence under Section 2(n) of the Cr.P.C.offfence means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. Thus on a conjoint reading of these two definitions, it is clear that an 'Act' punishable under law is composed of series of acts which form part of the same transaction. Therefore, though the commission of theft of these two vehicles are registered under different crimes that 'Act' also form part of the 'Act' of commission of the theft in the house of Venugopalan Nair as these two vehicles were used to reach the place of occurrence and to escape after the commission of the offence. Put it differently, even if the commission of theft of these two vehicles are investigating under different other crimes, there is no legal bar for asking police custody in this crime, if the application is within fifteen days from the date of first remand. Put it differently, even if the commission of theft of these two vehicles are investigating under different other crimes, there is no legal bar for asking police custody in this crime, if the application is within fifteen days from the date of first remand. This legal position is well settled in the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni [A.I.R. 1992 S.C.1768]. The proposition laid down in the above decision reads as follows: "In one occurrence it may so happen that the accused might have committed several offences and the police may arrest him in connection with one or two offences on the basis of the available information and obtain police custody. If during the investigation his complicity in more serious offences during the same occurrence is disclosed that does not authorise the police to ask for police custody for a further period after the expiry of the first fifteen days. If that is permitted then the police can go on adding some offence or the other of a serious nature at various stages and seek further detention in police custody repeatedly, this would defeat the very object underlying S.167. However, this limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. That would be a different transaction and if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and to enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case they can require his detention in police custody for the purpose of associating him with the investigation of the other case. In such a situation he must be formally arrested in connection with other case and then obtain the order of the magistrate for detention in police custody. If best must be made in this connection explicit that such re-arrest or second arrest and seeking police custody after the expiry of the period of first fifteen days should be with regard to the investigation of a different case other than the specific one in respect of which the accused is already in custody. If best must be made in this connection explicit that such re-arrest or second arrest and seeking police custody after the expiry of the period of first fifteen days should be with regard to the investigation of a different case other than the specific one in respect of which the accused is already in custody. A literal construction of S.167(2) to the effect that a fresh remand for police custody of a person already in judicial custody during investigation of a specific case cannot under any circumstances be issued would seriously hamper the very investigation or the other case the importance of which needs no special emphasis. The procedural law is meant to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same." 11. In the light of the above dictum, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in requesting police custody of the Revision petitioner for investigation in connection with Maruti Esteem Car and Tavera Car while the Revision petitioner is undergoing judicial custody in Crime No.118/2013. 12. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that now recovery is already over and there is no need for a further custody. Going by the affidavit and statement filed by the investigating officer, it could be seen that within a short span of time after the commission of the theft at Thiruvananthapuram, on the way to escape from police, he travelled through 3 States. So the facts and witnesses acquainted with the commission of the offence are spread over 3 States. In such circumstance, the request for police custody prima facie appears to be reasonable for proper investigation. According to prosecution, several articles were stolen away but some of them alone are recovered and further recovery is needed. Moreover recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act alone is not the only purpose for which police custody can be sought for as argued by the learned counsel. Police custody of the accused is necessary for interrogation, so as to get more details of the evidence which is required to be collected. The identification of the accused by witnesses who are acquainted with transaction involving series of acts made by the accused, during the commission of offence, before the commission of offence, and after the commission of offence are essential for a successful prosecution. 13. The identification of the accused by witnesses who are acquainted with transaction involving series of acts made by the accused, during the commission of offence, before the commission of offence, and after the commission of offence are essential for a successful prosecution. 13. No prosecution will be success, unless sufficient material evidence is collected and brought before the court. When an offence is allegedly committed by a single person, it is for him alone to divulge the material particulars of the offence which he has committed. In the instant case, police caught hold of him at Pune on 27.01.2013, brought to Thiruvananthapuram and arrested on 28.01.2013, produced before court and remanded to judicial custody on 29.01.2013. In view of the sequences of events, the argument of the prosecution that police did not get sufficient time to interrogate him and to effect further recovery, appears to be just, reasonable and believable. 14. Police custody was granted on 2-2-2013 at 2 p.m. Details of the further investigation made by the police after getting custody of the Revision petitioner on 4-2-2013 at 2 p.m. is narrated in para.9 of the statement filed by the investigating officer and the same reads as follows: "It is submitted that on 04.02.2013 the accused Devendra Singh led the investigation team to show the place where he hid the actual number plate of the stolen vehicle and other articles. At about 2.30 PM on 04.02.2013 the number plate having number KL-01-BG-29, a bunch of keys were recovered under section 27 of Evidence Act, on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused from Ramnagar a place near Madurai in Chennai. Also the hotel where the accused stayed after committing the crime was located and the staff of the hotel identified the accused. Also the workshop in which the accused made the number plate having the number TN-74-M-0480 was shown by him. The shop owner identified the accused Devendra Singh Kripal Singh @ Bundi Chor and produced the bill book in which the entry has been made in respect of the accused. Further the bill book was seized from the workshop on proper mahazar." The averments made above also show that the need for police custody was genuine, bona fide and purposeful. 15. The learned counsel submitted that the arrest itself was illegal as the police failed to produce the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours. Further the bill book was seized from the workshop on proper mahazar." The averments made above also show that the need for police custody was genuine, bona fide and purposeful. 15. The learned counsel submitted that the arrest itself was illegal as the police failed to produce the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours. But I find that those are matters which goes beyond the consideration of the legality of the impugned order under challenge in this revision petition. 16. The learned counsel cited in Kosanapu Ramreddy v. State of A.P [1994 Crl.L.J.2121), M.N. Sreedharan and others v. State of Kerala [1981 Crl.L.J.119], Md.Jahangeer v. State of A.P. [2000 Crl.L.J.2188], Munna Singh Tomar and others v. State of M.P. and Others [1989 Crl.L.J.580], State of Gujarat v. Swami Amar Jyoti Shyam [1989 Crl.L.J.501], in support of his argument. I have carefully considered all these decisions. What is stated in 1994 Crl.L.J.2121(supra) is that "There must of course, be sufficient grounds for change of custody". In the present case having regard to nature of offence and preliminary stage of investigation, it cannot be said that grounds for police custody do not exist. In 1981 Crl.L.J.119 (supra), this Court held that "when there is no knowledge or information about the existence or whereabouts of articles sought to be recovered, there is no purpose in directing police custody." But in the instant case, going by the affidavit and statement filed by the investigating officer, I am of the opinion that the investigating officer has full knowledge about the remaining articles sought to be recovered and witnesses by whom the Revision petitioner must be identified. Similarly in view of the recovery effected partially, the Revision Petitioner also would be well aware about the articles sought to be recovered. Considering the facts of this case, I find that these decisions cited by the learned counsel do not support the argument advanced by the learned counsel, but supportive of the impugned order. 17. Similarly in view of the recovery effected partially, the Revision Petitioner also would be well aware about the articles sought to be recovered. Considering the facts of this case, I find that these decisions cited by the learned counsel do not support the argument advanced by the learned counsel, but supportive of the impugned order. 17. In 2000 Crl.L.J.2188 (supra), the court held that "order granting police custody is not sustainable, in cases where police failed to mention reason or purpose for which police custody was sought and Magistrate granted police custody without assigning reasons." This decision is not applicable to this case, because the affidavit accompanying the petition filed by the investigating officer contains the full details of the purpose for which custody was sought for and the order thereon passed by the Magistrate contains reasons for granting police custody. The other decisions cited by the learned counsel are not applicable to facts and circumstances involved in this case. Thus I find that these decisions do not support the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 18. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that the sole purpose for seeking custody of the petitioner is the result of a conspiracy to torture the Revision petitioner mentally and physically. Certainly police has no right to torture an accused in custody either physically or mentally. The Supreme Court in D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal[ 1997(1) SCC 416 ) had issued a general guideline to be followed by the police while dealing with persons in custody. These guidelines were issued to all police stations in our country. I make it clear that the investigating officer must deal with the Revision petitioner strictly in accordance with the guidelines stated in the decision referred above. The learned Magistrate has taken care of this aspect and Investigating Officer is directed to see to it that the accused is not in any way harassed either mentally or physically during the period of custody. Therefore, I find that the apprehension of the Revision petitioner was not proper ground to dismiss the application for custody. 19. In the result of the above discussions made above, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order granting police custody passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, I find that the apprehension of the Revision petitioner was not proper ground to dismiss the application for custody. 19. In the result of the above discussions made above, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order granting police custody passed by the learned Magistrate. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate can be justified in granting the impugned order. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order invoking revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.