https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199142 During the transitional period before Special Courts were constituted under the NDPS Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure continued to govern remand and committal, so a Metropolitan Magistrate could authorise judicial custody for 15 days at a time under Section 167. The statutory scheme in Sections 36, 36A and 36D was read as preserving the Magistrate's power until committal to the Court of Session, and the contrary construction was rejected. In habeas corpus, the relevant inquiry is whether detention is lawful at the time of decision; earlier irregularity does not require release if custody has since become valid. On that basis, the detention was held lawful when the matter was decided. en-us Wed, 09 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:14:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199142 During the transitional period before Special Courts were constituted under the NDPS Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure continued to govern remand and committal, so a Metropolitan Magistrate could authorise judicial custody for 15 days at a time under Section 167. The statutory scheme in Sections 36, 36A and 36D was read as preserving the Magistrate's power until committal to the Court of Session, and the contrary construction was rejected. In habeas corpus, the relevant inquiry is whether detention is lawful at the time of decision; earlier irregularity does not require release if custody has since become valid. On that basis, the detention was held lawful when the matter was decided. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199142