AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 2282 ::2004 AIR SCW 2828 ::(2004) 1 BomCR(Cri) 491 ::(2005) 1 BomCR(Cri) 316 ::(2004) 20 IndLD 12 ::2005 ChandLR(Civ&Cri) 370 ::(2004) 3 CurCriR 1 ::(2004) 3 AllCriR 2205 ::2004 CriLR(SC&MP) 631 ::(2004) Mad LJ(Cri) 1001 ::2004 SCC(Cri) 1722 ::2004 (5) SCC 729 ::2004 (3) RecCriR 322 ::(2004) 5 Scale 330 ::(2004) 2 ALD(CRL) 95 ::(2004) 3 AllCriLR 87 ::2004 (5) ACE 459 ::2004 CalCriLR 1065 ::(2004) 2 BLJ 250 ::(2004) 2 ChandCriC 121 ::(2004) 3 CTC 138 (SC) ::2004 (3) CTC 138 ::2006 (2) EastCriC 190 ::2004 (28) OCR 487 ::2004 (3) JLJR 218 ::2004 (3) PatLJR 298 ::(2004) 3 Crimes 136 ::2004 (4) SLT 426 ::2004 (4) Supreme 460 ::(2004) 20 AllIndCas 274 (SC) ::2004 (20) AllIndCas 274 ::2004 AllMR(CRI) 648 ::(2004) 2 JCJR 79 (SC) ::2004 (49) AllCriC 481

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 2002 Madras LJ (Cri) 661)

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. Rajendra Babu, Ar. Lakshmanan, G. P. Mathur , JJJ

(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.397(2), S.187, S.209, S.309— Revision - Against order remanding accused to police custody - Not maintainable - Remand order cannot affect progress of trial or its decision in any manner - It is, therefore, interlocutory order, not revisable. Section 167, Cr. P.C. empowers a Judicial Magistrate to authorise the detention of an accused in the custody of police. Section 209, Cr. P.C. confers power upon a Magistrate to remand an accused to custody until the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and also until the conclusion of the trial. Section 309, Cr. P.C. confers power upon a Court to remand an accused to custody after taking cognizance of an offence or during commencement of trial when it finds it necessary to adjourn the enquiry or trial. The order of remand has no bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself nor it can have any effect on the ultimate decision of the case. If an order of remand is found to be illegal, it cannot result in acquittal of the accused or in termination of proceedings. A remand order cannot affect the progress of the trial or its decision in any manner. It cannot be categorised even as an 'intermediate order.' The order is, therefore, a pure and simple interlocutory order and in view of the bar created by sub-section (2) of S. 397, Cr.P.C., a revision against the said order is not ma....