Police custody in revision requires clear necessity for custodial interrogation; refusal upheld where investigation had substantially progressed.

Police custody in revision will not be disturbed unless the Magistrate's refusal is shown to be illegal or improper on the record. A revisional court does not reappraise the matter as on appeal, and custodial interrogation must be specifically justified by demonstrated investigative necessity. Here, the investigation had already covered substantial transactions, the disputed invoices and transfers were linked to periods when the accused was not shown to be in office, and the available report did not substantiate diversion of government funds. The refusal to grant police custody was therefore lawful, and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing police custody of the accused in the revision proceedings suffered from illegality or impropriety warranting interference.

Analysis: The scope of revision is confined to testing the legality and propriety of the impugned order on the material placed before the Magistrate, and the revisional court does not reassess the case as if in appeal. Police custody is not to be granted as a matter of course and requires a strong justification showing that further investigation cannot effectively proceed without custodial interrogation. On the material considered by the Magistrate, the investigation by the GST intelligence authorities had already covered a substantial part of the alleged transactions, the questioned invoices and transfers were linked to periods when the accused was not shown to be in office, and the committee report did not substantiate diversion of government funds on the available records.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant police custody was held to be lawful and no ground for interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The revision was found to be without merit, and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Police custody in revision will not be interfered with unless the record shows a clear necessity for custodial interrogation and illegality in the Magistrate's refusal, particularly where investigation has substantially progressed and the available material does not justify further custodial detention.

---