R. J. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application which is directed against the order granting remand dated 23rd November 1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Surat in Criminal Revision Application No. 184 of 1983 which revision application was filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Vyara District Surat in Utchhal Crime Register No. 20 of 1983 rejecting the prayer for remand of the present petitioners who were original accused. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present application are that the prosecution has alleged that information regarding the incident was received by Chawk Bazar Police Station Surat on 17th November 1983 at about 8. 10 a. m. that pursuant to the same at about 8. 30 a. m. the accused were arrested that when it transpired that the Chawk Bazar Police Station had no territorial jurisdiction the investigation was transferred to Utchhal Police Station Surat (Rural) that accused No. 1 and deceased Nisarbhai Ali Ahmed were partners that there was a dispute between the two that on 14th November 1983 both the accused persons on a false pretext to collect money took the deceased with them that on 14th November 1983 in the evening the accused and the deceased went to Kadodara and then to Bardoli and that thereafter at about 20. 00 hours to 20. 30 hours the accused persons committed murder of the deceased by giving knife blows. It is further alleged by the prosecution that with an intention to destroy the evidence the accused persons tried to dispose of the dead body by sprinkling petrol on the same and setting the same on fire. The P. S. I. Utchhal Police Station on 18th November 1983 produced both the accused at about 1 p. m. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Vyara. A report on the same day was filed by the P. S. I. concerned requesting the Court to grant remand for 10 days. By the aforesaid order the Judicial Magistrate First Class Vyara dismissed the said application for remand. The matter was taken to the Sessions Court by virtue of the aforesaid criminal revision application No. 184 of 1983 and ultimately the order granting remand for 4 days was passed by the Sessions Court. Hence the present application. By the aforesaid order the Judicial Magistrate First Class Vyara dismissed the said application for remand. The matter was taken to the Sessions Court by virtue of the aforesaid criminal revision application No. 184 of 1983 and ultimately the order granting remand for 4 days was passed by the Sessions Court. Hence the present application. ( 3 ) AT the outset it may be stated that the application is resisted as per the two affidavits made by Shri N. D. Roy Police Sub-Inspector Utchhal Police Station which are on record. An opportunity was furnished to the present petitioners to produce any affidavit against the same if it was thought fit to do so. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners did not propose to file any affidavit against the said affidavits. ( 4 ) IT has firstly been contended by Shri J. M. Panchal the learned advocate for the petitioners that as the accused were taken in judicial custody no order regarding remand can be passed according to law. In support it has been pointed out that the aforesaid P. S. I. is per his report dated 18th November 1983 produced the accused in the Court at Vyara to be taken in judicial custody and therefore no order for remand could be passed thereafter. It is to be noted that at the very time when the said report was made a report for taking the accused on remand was submitted by the same P. S I. before the same Court. If it Was the intention of the Utchhal Police Station to commit the accused in judicial custody as contended then the aforesaid report for remand would not have been made at all. Apart from that as stated above the information regarding the said incident of murder has been alleged to have been received by the Chawk Bazar Police Station on 17th November 1983 in the morning at 8. 10 a. m. The report for taking the accused on remand was made on 18th December 1983 in the first half of the day. It cannot be gain-said that at that time investigation of the matter was not over. The question therefore of handing over the accused in judicial custody as claimed by the petitioners could not have arisen at that stage. It cannot be gain-said that at that time investigation of the matter was not over. The question therefore of handing over the accused in judicial custody as claimed by the petitioners could not have arisen at that stage. I am therefore unable to conclude that the accused were given in judicial custody as claimed by the petitioners. ( 5 ) IN connection with the point under consideration the learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to some decisions but in all of them the case either was of voluntary surrender or of conscious handing over of the accused in Court custody. Since the present is not such a case inasmuch as there is neither voluntary surrender nor conscious handing over of the accused to judicial custody by the investigation agency the said authorities cannot further the case of the petitioners in this connection. ( 6 ) THE next contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that in the present case there is illegal detention of the accused inasmuch as the accused have remained in custody of the police for more than 24 hours and so no order regarding remand can be passed in the present case. As stated above the accused had been arrested by the Chawk Bazar Police Station on 17th November 1983 at about 8. 30 a. m. In this connection in the affidavit of the aforesaid P. S. I. dated 2nd December 1983 it has been stated that while the accused were in the custody of Chawk Bazar Police Station accused No. 1 had stated that the crime was committed at a place which was away from Surat city by 108 kms and was on Songhad-Navapur highway which was about 6 kms away from Utchhal. As a result of the said statement made by accused M. 1 the Chawk Bazar Police contacted Utchhal police at 16 hours on 17th November 1983 It is further stated in the said affidavit that it was thereafter that the said P. S. I. took over the investigation from the Chawk Bazar Police Station that accused No 1 had shown his willingness and readiness to point out the place where actually the dead body of the said Nisar came to be thrown in the jungle by him that he accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 along with two panchas went to the said place that they had started in jeep from Utchhal Police Station at 17. 30 hours on 17th November 1983 that at a distance of about 29 kms. accused No. 1 asked the driver of the jeep to stop the vehicle that thereafter accused No. 1 got down and led them to a place where he pointed out the dead body of deceased Nisar which in fact was lying in a half burnt condition that a panchnama was drawn on the spot and on the next day Medical Officer Utchhal was taken to the said spot where the dead body was lying and that the post mortem examination was conducted on the spot which revealed as many as 11 stab wounds which could be caused by sharp cutting instruments like knife. As stated above the accused were produced before the Court at Vyara at about 1 p. m. on 18th November 1983 In the first place it can be seen that Chawk Bazar Police Station was constrained to hand over the investigation to Utchhal Police Station as stated above. So far as Utchhal Police Station is concerned as per the affidavit of the aforesaid P. S. I. he had taken over the investigation at about 16. 00 hours on 17th November 1983 and the accused was produced within 24 hours thereafter before the Court. It is true that if the time is to be calculated from the time the accused were arrested by the Chawk Bazar Police Station then the accused were produced in Court after 24 hours. It is however in the aforesaid circumstances that the accused were not produced before the Court within the prescribed time as per Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is however in the aforesaid circumstances that the accused were not produced before the Court within the prescribed time as per Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However in the facts and circumstances of the present case it does not seem that the accused were kept in police custody wilfully and deliberately with a view to circumvent the provisions of law. If however it is felt that there has been illegal detention of the petitioners then it is open to the petitioners to proceed against the person concerned for the said illegal detention. The question however is that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances whether it is open to the Court to pass an order for remand of the accused. The aforesaid facts clearly show that till the time the accused was produced before the Court the investigation was not over. In the report asking for remand the said P. S. I. has stated that the case was of circumstantial evidence and so it was necessary to pray for remand. It would therefore seem that in the interest of justice prayer for remand cannot be negatived on this count. ( 7 ) IN this connection it was also urged that since the copies of the entries in the diary as required by Section 167 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code were not produced before or at the time of making prayer for remand the order regarding remand could not be passed. In this connection a report was given by the said P. S. I. to the Court at Vyara on 18th November 1983 stating therein that as the accused were to be taken on remand and as the case diary was required to be produced for that purpose and as the case diary was still to be written two hours time may be granted for the purpose. Objections were taken to the said report on behalf of the accused and after hearing the learned advocates the learned Magistrate had ordered that no such time could be given. It is not in dispute before me that the original case diary which was made available to the Court was written so far as 17th November 1983 was concerned. As stated above accused were produced in Court on 18th November 1983 at about 1 p. m. Section 167 (1) Cr. It is not in dispute before me that the original case diary which was made available to the Court was written so far as 17th November 1983 was concerned. As stated above accused were produced in Court on 18th November 1983 at about 1 p. m. Section 167 (1) Cr. P. C. inter alia provides to the effect that a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case. Section 172 (1) of the Cr. P. C. amongst other things provides that every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a dairy. Thus the said diary was to be maintained from day to day and not from hour to hour. As stated above the accused were produced before the Court at 1 p. m. on 18th November 1983 and the diary for 18th November 1983 was not written at the time when the accused were produced in Court. It was in those circumstances that the application was made by the P. S. I. requesting time of two hours to complete the same so far as 18th was concerned. As stated above such time was not granted and the granting of such time was also opposed by the petitioners. Further when an application for remand is being considered the non-completion of the said diary for 18th November 1983 in the afore-said circumstances cannot be held out against the prosecution. The diary so far as 17th November 1983 was concerned had been written and the said aspect is not in dispute. In the aforesaid view of this matter this aspect also cannot weigh in favour of the petitioners. ( 8 ) IN this connection the learned advocate for the petitioners has put reliance on R. K. Nabachandra Singh v. Manipur Administration AIR 1964 Manipur 39 wherein it is observed that if the police do not transmit to the Court a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case to satisfy the Magistrate that there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded and that a remand is absolutely necessary for the purpose of investigation the Magistrate would have no jurisdiction to direct the detention of the arrested person. It has also been observed in respect of the case before the Court that in that particular case the Magistrate had directed the prosecution on 8th May 1963 to produce the documents referred to in Section 167 (1) Cr. P. C. and waited for that till 5. 30 p. m. and the police had deliberately failed to produce the documents. The facts of the present case as stated above are entirely different. The P. S. I. concerned had produced the original diary and had also requested and shown willingness to produce the completed diary within 2 hours if time was granted. The aforesaid decision therefore cannot help the petitioners before me. ( 9 ) IT was next urged that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in entertaining the revision application before him inasmuch as it was not open to him under Section 396 (2) of Cr. P. C to entertain a revision application in respect of an interlocutory order. An order refusing or granting remand cannot be looked upon as an interlocutory order. No decision has been brought to my notice wherein it has been held that an order granting or refusing remand is an interlocutory order. Furthermore it goes without saying that a fresh opportunity will not arise in future once the learned Magistrate rules that the remand cannot be granted. In that view of the matter it does not seem that the learned Sessions Judge had committed an error in entertaining the criminal revision application before him. As held in V. C. Shukla v. State through C. B. I. AIR 1980 Supreme Court 962 the essential attribute of an interlocutory order is that it merely decides some point of matter essential to the progress of the suit or collateral to the issues sought but not a final decision or judgment on the matter in issue and further that intermediate order is one which is made between the commencement of an action and the entry of the judgment. I am unable to conclude that the order passed by the learned Magistrate regarding remand would be an interlocutory order within the meaning of the aforesaid. I am unable to conclude that the order passed by the learned Magistrate regarding remand would be an interlocutory order within the meaning of the aforesaid. ( 10 ) IT was also urged on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had been beaten and ill-treated when he was in the custody of Chawk Bazar Police Station Surat and that therefore an order regarding remand should not be passed As stated above the investigation regarding the case in question is now with Utchhal Police Station and the petitioners have not made a grievance that while they were in the custody of Utchhal Police Station they had been ill-treated. If the petitioners had been ill-treated while in the custody of Chawk Bazar Police Station then the petitioners are free to take such action in the matter as they are entitled to under law. That aspect however cannot weigh in the facts and circumstances of the present case where investigation is to proceed in a murder case on circumstantial evidence. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners both of them were arrested on 16th November 1983 and this submission is based on the statement dated 18th November 1983 of accused No. 1 him-self which is on record. Excepting the aforesaid. there is nothing on the record which points in that direction. The aforesaid affidavit as stated above clearly mentions the time when the petitioners were arrested. The submission made in this connection therefore is devoid of substance. ( 12 ) MY attention has been invited to Gian Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration) and Others 1981 Cri. L. J. 100 wherein with regard to the provisions of Section 167 Cr. P. C. it has been observed by the Delhi High Court as under:these provisions indicate one thing clearly more than anything else that once the accused is remanded to judicial custody he cannot be sent back to police custody in connection with or in continuation of the same investigation. Since this section provides the procedure where investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours it obviously follows that the detention authorised by this section whether in police custody or otherwise is for the duration of the investigation of which interrogation of the accused forms an important ingredient. Since this section provides the procedure where investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours it obviously follows that the detention authorised by this section whether in police custody or otherwise is for the duration of the investigation of which interrogation of the accused forms an important ingredient. Therefore the accused even after his remand to judicial custody can subject to his right to silence be questioned by the police with the permission of the magistrate in any place and manner which do not amount to custody in the police. SO far as the first aspect covered by the aforesaid observations is concerned I have already concluded hereabove that the petitioners were never remanded to judicial custody according to law. The latter part of the aforesaid observations would not apply in the present case since the fact-situation is different. In the present case we are concerned with the fact-situation where there has not been judicial custody and remand has been requested for. ( 13 ) IN view of all the aforesaid this miscellaneous criminal application stands dismissed. The petitioners to be taken into police custody after 20th December 1983 pursuant to the order dated 23rd November 1983 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 184 of 1983 by the learned Sessions Judge Surat. ( 14 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioners makes a request that the petitioners want to pursue the matter in the Supreme Court and so for that purpose time may be given. Considering the subject matter and considering the objections raised on behalf of the State the time is granted only up to 29th December 1983 Petitioners to note that no further time will be granted to them by this Court and so by the said time granted the petitioners should obtain necessary orders from the Supreme Court if they so desire. The operation of the above order passed in this misc. criminal application is ordered to be stayed upto 29 December 1983 In the meanwhile the investigating authority is at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in jail premises. Petitions dismissed. .