Magistrate custody under criminal procedure applies to arrests under special fiscal laws when production before court is required.

A Magistrate's power under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to a person arrested and produced under special fiscal statutes such as the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Customs Act, 1962. The article states that the expressions "person" and "accused" in Section 167 are not confined to a formally arraigned accused, and that Section 4(2) of the Code extends the procedural scheme where the special law does not exclude it. It further notes that the absence of a police investigation in the strict Chapter XII sense does not prevent detention authorisation, because the special officers perform analogous investigative functions.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to authorise detention of a person arrested under Section 35(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 or Section 104(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 when produced under the respective statutory provisions.

Analysis: The arrest-and-production provisions in the special fiscal enactments were treated as operating in pari materia with the corresponding procedural scheme of the Code. The Court held that the words "person" and "accused" in Section 167 are not to be confined to a person already arrayed as an accused in the strict sense used in other contexts, and that the production of such an arrestee before the Magistrate is sufficient to attract the Magistrate's power under Section 167(2). The Court further held that Section 4(2) of the Code applies to offences under special laws where no contrary procedure excludes the Code, and that the special Acts do not exclude the Magistrate's power to authorise detention. The absence of a police investigation in the strict Chapter XII sense did not prevent application of Section 167(2), since the special officers exercise analogous investigative powers and the statutory scheme would otherwise be rendered ineffective.

Conclusion: The Magistrate does have jurisdiction to authorise detention under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of a person arrested and produced under Section 35(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 or Section 104(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Final Conclusion: The impugned view that the Magistrate lacked power to commit such arrestees to custody was rejected, and the earlier view recognising that power was affirmed as the correct law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special fiscal statute requires production of the arrested person before a Magistrate and does not exclude the Code, the Magistrate's power under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to authorise detention is attracted even though the arrest is made by an authorised non-police officer.

---