Police remand refusal is a final revisable order because it conclusively denies custodial interrogation and affects investigation.

Refusal of police remand is treated as a final, not merely interlocutory, order because it conclusively determines the limited request for custodial interrogation. That refusal has a direct bearing on investigation, may affect collection of evidence, and can influence the progress and ultimate outcome of the prosecution. Since section 397 of the Code bars revision only against interlocutory orders, a revision against an order refusing police remand remains maintainable under sections 397 and 401 of the Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order refusing to grant police remand is an interlocutory order or an intermediate or final order; (ii) whether an order refusing to grant remand has a bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself or on the ultimate decision of the case; (iii) whether a revision against an order refusing police remand is maintainable under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether an order refusing to grant police remand is an interlocutory order or an intermediate or final order

Analysis: The expression "interlocutory order" is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and must be understood in contrast with final and intermediate orders. An order is interlocutory when it is merely a step in aid of the main proceeding and does not finally determine the matter in dispute. Applying the principles stated in the leading authorities on finality, the decisive test is whether the order, if upheld, finally disposes of the proceeding or finally determines the relevant right in issue. Refusal of police remand finally negates the prosecution's request for custodial interrogation and therefore terminates that limited proceeding.

Conclusion: An order refusing to grant police remand is a final order and not a mere interlocutory order.

Issue (ii): Whether an order refusing to grant remand has a bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself or on the ultimate decision of the case

Analysis: Police remand is sought as a means of effective investigation and, in appropriate cases, to enable discovery of material evidence and interrogation of the accused in custody. When remand is refused, the investigating agency is denied that investigative facility, which may directly affect the collection of evidence and, in a given case, the progress and outcome of the prosecution. The effect is confined to the limited investigative right sought to be exercised, but within that sphere the refusal finally determines the matter.

Conclusion: An order refusing to grant remand has a direct bearing on the proceedings and may affect the ultimate decision of the case.

Issue (iii): Whether a revision against an order refusing police remand is maintainable under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Analysis: The bar under section 397(2) applies only to interlocutory orders. Since refusal of police remand is not interlocutory and instead finally determines the request for custodial interrogation, the revisional bar does not apply. The revisional jurisdiction remains available under sections 397 and 401 of the Code.

Conclusion: A revision against an order refusing police remand is maintainable under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that refusal of police remand is a final, revisable order, that such refusal can affect investigation and the course of the case, and that the revisional remedy is available against it.

Ratio Decidendi: An order is not interlocutory if it finally determines the limited proceeding or right in issue and, for the purpose of section 397, refusal of police remand is revisable because it conclusively denies the investigative request for custodial interrogation.

---