Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State Rep. By Inspector Of Police VS N. M. T. Joy Immaculate...
2004 4 Supreme 460 : The order of police remand is a pure and simple interlocutory order, and in view of the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C., a revision against the said order is not maintainable. The High Court erred in entertaining the revision against the order dated 6.11.2001 of the Metropolitan Magistrate granting police custody of the accused Joy Immaculate for one day. The order of remand has no bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself nor can it have any effect on the ultimate decision of the case. Therefore, it cannot be categorised even as an ''''intermediate order'''' under the test laid down in Madhu Limaye''''s case.Checking relevance for Rameshwar Prasad VS State of Rajasthan...
2009 0 Supreme(SC) 438 : The High Court has the authority to quash and set aside a remand order passed by the Appellate Court in a criminal case, even if the remand was made to fill lacunae, as such an exercise is not permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this case, the High Court correctly set aside the remand order dated 16.4.2004, which had directed a fresh trial due to certain lacunae, but failed to examine the appeal on merits. The Supreme Court held that while the remand order was invalid, the High Court should have examined the case on merits instead of merely upholding the trial court''''s conviction without review. This establishes that a challenge to a remand order in criminal revision is permissible, and the High Court may set aside such an order if it is contrary to settled law, but must also proceed to examine the appeal on merits when the remand is quashed.Checking relevance for Raj Kumar Khemka VS State of Uttar Pradesh...
2003 0 Supreme(SC) 1569 : The Revisional Court can grant relief only in exceptional circumstances and has no jurisdiction to reverse the finding of acquittal into conviction. A remand order by the Revisional Court is not justified if it is based on extraneous considerations or not on permissible grounds under the law. The High Court''''s refusal to interfere with an unjustified remand order was also deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed, and the order of acquittal by the trial court was restored.Checking relevance for Susanta Dey VS Babli Majumdar...
2019 0 Supreme(SC) 370 : In a criminal revision challenging a remand order, the High Court must not decide the merits of the case on its own. If the remand order by the Appellate Court is found to be illegal, the High Court is legally obligated to remand the case back to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision on merits, rather than directly sentencing the accused or awarding compensation. The High Court committed a jurisdictional error by bypassing this procedure and deciding the complaint on merits, thereby setting aside both the Appellate Court''''s remand order and the High Court''''s own impugned order. The Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits based on the existing record, without being influenced by prior observations.Checking relevance for GAUTAM NAVLAKHA VS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY...
2021 0 Supreme(SC) 257 : An order under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. is purely an interlocutory order, and no revision is maintainable against it under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. However, a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be ruled out. When a person arrested in a non-bailable offence is in custody, a court other than the High Court or Court of Session can release him on bail under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. Ordinarily, when a court considers a request for remand, there would be an application for bail. If bail is not granted, the order of remand follows. Although an application under Section 397 would not lie against a remand, an application for bail would lie under Section 439. The High Court or Court of Session may consider the legality and need for remand in an application under Section 439.
