STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS. versus N.M.T. JOY IMMACULATE

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 05-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
... 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
N.M.T. JOY IMMACULATE 
MAY 5, 2004 
[RAJENDRA BABU, CJ, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND 
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
B 
Section 397(2)-0rder granting police custody-Revision petition C 
against-Maintainability of-Held : Order being an interlocutory order, 
revision against the order not maintainable. 
Revision petition against remand order-Scope of-Held : Is limited 
to the legality of the order passed, having regard to material placed before D 
the Magistrate, even if it is assumed to be maintainable-High Court 
cannot record any findings regarding conduct of the investigation or 
records on which prosecution places reliance-It cannot scuttle the trial 
even before it has commenced-Trial court has to weigh evidence adduced 
by prosecution and then record findings. 
E 
Criminal trial-Evidence obtained under illegal remand-Evidentiary 
value of-Held : if remand order is found to be illegal, the relevant 
evidence obtained thereunder cannot be excluded-It cannot be said that 
the confession made and alleged recovery have no evidentiary value- F 
Evidence Act, 1872. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Interlocutory order '-Meaning of in the context of sub-section (2) 
of section 379 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
G 
A case was registered against the respondent-accused and others 
under section 363 and 302 IPC. Responde
0nt surrendered and was , 
remanded to judicial custody. Investigating Officer filed application 
for grant of police remand of respondent. Respondent was given in H 
71 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A police custody for one day and on her confessional statement, wrist 
watch, shirt of the deceased and the nylon rope used in the commission 
of murder were recovered. Two weeks later respondent filed revision 
petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. praying· that the order granting 
police custody be set aside as the same was against principles laid down 
B under section 167 Cr.P.C. and also made allegations against police 
personnel that she was wrongfully and illegally detained. High Court 
disposed of the revision petition by issuing several directions that the 
order granting police custody in respect of the respondent was ex-facie 
illegal as such non-est and in view of the same the confession made and 
C the alleged recovery had no evidentiary value; that the investigation 
conducted was not bona fide and false records have been created to 
implicate respondent; that respondent had been wrongfully and illegally 
detained in police station for four days and was harassed and tortured 
by them; that the Commissioner of Police must take departmental 
action against police personnel responsible for illegal detention and 
D other obscene acts committed on respondent; that the State Government 
must pay respondent Rs. 1 lakh compensation for the same; and that 
the State Government must issue circular to all police stations that 
woman accused/witness should not be brought to police station and 
they must be inquired only by woman police at the place where they 
E reside. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : Per },fathur J (.F'or himself and Rajendra Babu CJ!) 
F 
I. 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. 
G Therefore, applying the test that whether by upholding the objections 
raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, and 
if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely 
interlocutory' ii' nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. remand 
order cannot be categorised even as an "intermediate order". Therefore, 
H the order is a pure and simple interlocutory order and in view of the 
" 
• 
• 
• 
STA TE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. N.M.T. JOY IMMACULATE 73 
bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. a revision against A 
such order is not maintainable. Therefore, High Court erred in 
entertaining the revision against the remand order. (84-D-G) 
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1978) SC 47, relied 
on. 
S. Kuppuswami Rao v. King, AIR (1949) FC l; KK. Patel v. State 
of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195, referred to. 
B 
New Lexico
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.