https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278391 A person arrested by an Enforcement Officer under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be remanded to judicial custody under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the officer had only limited arrest and bail powers, not the status of an officer-in-charge of a police station. Section 167 of the Code was inapplicable, Section 309 could operate only after cognizance, and cognizance itself was barred except on a written complaint by the Director of Enforcement or an authorised officer. In the absence of a special statutory provision authorising remand, continued detention was unlawful; the writ of habeas corpus was therefore granted and release ordered forthwith. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:45:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278391 A person arrested by an Enforcement Officer under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be remanded to judicial custody under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the officer had only limited arrest and bail powers, not the status of an officer-in-charge of a police station. Section 167 of the Code was inapplicable, Section 309 could operate only after cognizance, and cognizance itself was barred except on a written complaint by the Director of Enforcement or an authorised officer. In the absence of a special statutory provision authorising remand, continued detention was unlawful; the writ of habeas corpus was therefore granted and release ordered forthwith. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278391