Revisional scrutiny of custody refusal: courts must assess prima facie material and custodial need in money-laundering probes.

An order refusing further investigative custody can attain finality on that limited question and is therefore revisable, because it is not merely interlocutory when no further application for the same relief survives. In money-laundering investigations, the court must meaningfully assess the prima facie material, including statements and the alleged flow of proceeds of crime, and balance personal liberty against the need for effective custodial interrogation. A perfunctory refusal without proper appreciation of the record may be interfered with, and the custody request may require fresh consideration by the Special Judge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order refusing further custody of the respondent was a revisable final order rather than an interlocutory order. (ii) Whether the impugned refusal to extend custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 suffered from non-application of mind and warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether the order refusing further custody of the respondent was a revisable final order rather than an interlocutory order.

Analysis: An order refusing police or investigative custody attains finality on the limited question of custody because no further application for the same relief survives. Such an order is not a purely procedural step and is therefore amenable to revisional scrutiny despite the bar on revision against interlocutory orders. The nature of the order must be determined by its effect on the specific matter decided, and refusal of custody finally decides that subject for the time being.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable and the custody-refusal order was not merely interlocutory.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned refusal to extend custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 suffered from non-application of mind and warranted interference.

Analysis: The material collected in investigation, including statements recorded under the Act, indicated a prima facie nexus between the respondent and the alleged laundering arrangement, the flow of proceeds of crime, and the need for further custodial interrogation. In a case involving serious economic offences, the court must balance personal liberty with the requirement of a free, fair and full investigation. The impugned order was found to have been passed in a casual and perfunctory manner without proper appreciation of the investigative material and the gravity of the allegations.

Conclusion: The refusal to extend custody was interfered with and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the Special Judge.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court set aside the order declining further custody and required a fresh decision on the custody request in light of the material on record.

Ratio Decidendi: An order finally refusing investigative custody is revisable, and in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a court must meaningfully assess prima facie material and the need for custodial interrogation before declining further custody.

---