https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274367 A person arrested under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be validly remanded to judicial custody by a Magistrate because the Act's arrest power under Section 35 did not make the Enforcement Officer a police officer for all purposes. Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 therefore did not apply, and Section 309(2) could operate only after cognizance was taken. As Section 61 barred cognizance except on a written complaint by the Director of Enforcement or an authorised officer, and no provision expressly conferred remand power, neither Section 309 nor Section 437 justified the custody order. Detention was accordingly without authority of law. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:01:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274367 A person arrested under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be validly remanded to judicial custody by a Magistrate because the Act's arrest power under Section 35 did not make the Enforcement Officer a police officer for all purposes. Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 therefore did not apply, and Section 309(2) could operate only after cognizance was taken. As Section 61 barred cognizance except on a written complaint by the Director of Enforcement or an authorised officer, and no provision expressly conferred remand power, neither Section 309 nor Section 437 justified the custody order. Detention was accordingly without authority of law. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 01 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274367