Case Note & Summary
The present criminal revision application was filed by the original accused (petitioners) challenging the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalod, rejecting the police remand application preferred by the Investigating Officer. The case arose from an FIR registered with Chakaliya Police Station, District Dahod, alleging illegal transportation of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) from Rajasthan into Gujarat. A TATA Punch vehicle containing 312 bottles (79.200 litres) of IMFL was found abandoned near Talava Chokdi while being chased by police personnel. The petitioners were named in the FIR and arrested. Upon their production before the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer sought custodial interrogation on grounds including interrogation regarding procurement of IMFL from Rajasthan, arrest of co-accused, seizure of an Alto car used for piloting, investigation of the source of finance, and investigation of previous deliveries. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both sides and considering the case diary, rejected the remand application by a reasoned order. The High Court, in revision, examined the Magistrate's order and found that the Magistrate had recorded that the accused were already in judicial custody and no recovery was pending. The Court held that the Magistrate's order was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The revision application was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Police Remand - Section 167(2) CrPC - Custodial Interrogation - The learned Magistrate rejected the police remand application on the ground that the accused were already in judicial custody and no recovery was pending - The High Court held that the Magistrate's order was reasoned and did not warrant interference - Held that police remand cannot be granted mechanically and must be based on necessity for investigation (Paras 1-7)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - The revisional court can interfere only if the order is perverse, illegal, or suffers from jurisdictional error - The High Court found no such error in the Magistrate's order rejecting remand - Held that the revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate power (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the police remand application seeking custodial interrogation of the accused in a case of illegal transportation of IMFL
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalod, dated 22.01.2026 rejecting the police remand application.
Law Points
- Police remand under Section 167(2) CrPC is not a matter of right
- custodial interrogation requires strong grounds
- rejection of remand application is justified when accused are already in judicial custody and no recovery is pending
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 437
R/Criminal Revision Application No. 584 of 2026
Mr. Maulik M. Soni for the applicants, Mr. Rohan Shah, APP for the respondent-State
Mohanbhai Rameshbhai Taviyd & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against rejection of police remand application
Remedy Sought
The applicants (original accused) sought to challenge the order rejecting police remand, but the revision was filed by the accused (not the prosecution) - actually the revision is by the accused against the rejection of remand? The text says 'petitioners are original accused' and they filed the revision. However, the remand application was by the IO, so the accused would not challenge its rejection. There appears to be an inconsistency. Based on the text: 'The petitioners are original accused...' and they filed the revision. But the order rejected the IO's remand application. Possibly the accused filed revision to challenge some other order? The text states: 'The present revision application is filed by the petitioners... challenging the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned ACJM, Jhalod, rejecting the police remand application.' So the accused are challenging the rejection of remand? That seems unusual. However, the judgment proceeds to dismiss the revision. So the remedy sought is to set aside the order rejecting remand.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalod, rejecting the police remand application
Previous Decisions
The learned Magistrate rejected the police remand application by a reasoned order dated 22.01.2026
Issues
Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the police remand application seeking custodial interrogation of the accused
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the Magistrate's order
Submissions/Arguments
The Investigating Officer sought custodial interrogation on grounds of interrogating regarding procurement of IMFL from Rajasthan, arresting co-accused, seizing Alto car, investigating source of finance, and investigating previous deliveries
The learned Magistrate rejected the remand application after hearing both sides and considering the case diary
Ratio Decidendi
The Magistrate's order rejecting police remand was reasoned and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The revisional court cannot interfere with a well-reasoned order unless it is perverse or illegal. Police remand under Section 167(2) CrPC is not a matter of right and must be based on necessity for investigation.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Magistrate recorded that the accused were already in judicial custody and no recovery was pending.
The order passed by the learned Magistrate is a reasoned order and does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Procedural History
FIR registered with Chakaliya Police Station; accused arrested; Investigating Officer filed police remand application before learned ACJM, Jhalod; learned Magistrate rejected remand application on 22.01.2026; accused filed Criminal Revision Application No. 584 of 2026 before High Court; High Court dismissed revision on 02.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 167(2), 397
