https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168902 Statutory recovery of an abducted person under a special enactment was treated as a restorative custody procedure, not as arrest or detention for a criminal accusation, so the safeguards in Article 22(1) and (2) were held inapplicable. The Court also held that abducted persons formed a distinct class and that the geographical extension of the Act to specified States was a permissible classification, so the Act did not violate Article 14. The commentary further notes that, although the constitutional challenges failed, the appeal could not succeed because the Tribunal was improperly constituted and its order lacked jurisdiction. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:44:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168902 Statutory recovery of an abducted person under a special enactment was treated as a restorative custody procedure, not as arrest or detention for a criminal accusation, so the safeguards in Article 22(1) and (2) were held inapplicable. The Court also held that abducted persons formed a distinct class and that the geographical extension of the Act to specified States was a permissible classification, so the Act did not violate Article 14. The commentary further notes that, although the constitutional challenges failed, the appeal could not succeed because the Tribunal was improperly constituted and its order lacked jurisdiction. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Nov 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168902