24-hour production rule starts from initial apprehension, and nearest Magistrate may authorise first remand under the special statute.

The 24-hour production requirement runs from the start of restraint on liberty at initial apprehension, not from the time a formal arrest is recorded, so detention beyond that period before production violates Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC. The nearest Magistrate may lawfully conduct the first remand under Section 167(2) CrPC even where the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act contemplates a Special Court, because the special statute does not exclude that initial procedural role. Relief was confined to detainees kept in custody beyond the permissible 24-hour period from apprehension.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the period of apprehension by the police, and not merely the time shown as formal arrest, is to be counted for the purpose of the 24-hour requirement for production before a Magistrate; (ii) Whether, in cases under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996, the first remand must be before the notified Special Court or may be before the nearest Judicial Magistrate.

Issue (i): Whether the period of apprehension by the police, and not merely the time shown as formal arrest, is to be counted for the purpose of the 24-hour requirement for production before a Magistrate.

Analysis: Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 protect personal liberty by requiring production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding journey time. The governing principle applied was that arrest or detention commences when restraint on liberty begins, not when arrest is formally recorded. On the admitted facts, the detenus who were initially apprehended earlier remained in police custody beyond 24 hours before production.

Conclusion: The period of initial apprehension must be counted for the 24-hour limit. The detenus who were produced after completion of 24 hours were entitled to relief, while those produced within 24 hours were not.

Issue (ii): Whether, in cases under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996, the first remand must be before the notified Special Court or may be before the nearest Judicial Magistrate.

Analysis: Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly empowers the Magistrate to whom an accused is forwarded to authorise custody even if he lacks jurisdiction to try the case. Reading that provision with Sections 13 and 14 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996, the special enactment was held not to exclude the initial procedural role of the nearest Judicial Magistrate. The use of the word "may" in Section 13 was treated as enabling rather than mandatory in this context.

Conclusion: The nearest Judicial Magistrate had competence and jurisdiction to entertain the first remand, and there was no jurisdictional error in producing the detenus before that Magistrate.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent of the detenus who were kept in custody beyond the permissible 24-hour period from initial apprehension, and the remaining challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the 24-hour limit runs from the commencement of restraint on liberty at initial apprehension, and Section 167(2) preserves the power of the nearest Magistrate to authorise first remand even where a special court is contemplated under the special statute.

---