Remand under FERA required specific statutory authority; detention without a valid remand order was unlawful.

A person arrested by an Enforcement Officer under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be remanded to judicial custody under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the officer had only limited arrest and bail powers, not the status of an officer-in-charge of a police station. Section 167 of the Code was inapplicable, Section 309 could operate only after cognizance, and cognizance itself was barred except on a written complaint by the Director of Enforcement or an authorised officer. In the absence of a special statutory provision authorising remand, continued detention was unlawful; the writ of habeas corpus was therefore granted and release ordered forthwith.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person arrested by an Enforcement Officer under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be remanded to judicial custody under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether continued detention in the absence of a valid remand order was lawful.

Analysis: Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 conferred only a limited power on the Enforcement Officer to arrest and to release the arrested person on bail or otherwise, in substance similar to the power under the Customs Act. The statutory language did not make the Enforcement Officer an officer-in-charge of a police station for all purposes, and Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 therefore did not apply. Section 309 of the Code could operate only after cognizance of an offence, but Section 61 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 barred cognizance except on a written complaint by the Director of Enforcement or an authorised officer. In the absence of a provision authorising remand during this stage, there was no legal basis to continue the detention. The Court also held that Section 437 of the Code could not be used to justify custody merely because bail was refused or not furnished.

Conclusion: The remand to judicial custody was invalid and the detention was without authority of law.

Final Conclusion: The writ of habeas corpus was granted and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Remand to custody of a person arrested under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is permissible only where a specific statutory provision authorises it, and neither Section 167 nor Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked in the absence of cognizance and an enabling provision under the special statute.

---