https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293024 The court held that the Magistrate misdirected himself by involving in a case under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act that fell within the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate. The Magistrate's role was limited to procedural matters, not substantive investigation. The direction for parties to adduce evidence on ownership of seized money was deemed inappropriate as it was for the Enforcement Officer's investigation. The court emphasized the need for direct custody transfer of seized money to the Enforcement Officer for seamless investigation, and the admissibility of the accused's confession was to be determined by the officer conducting the inquiry, not the Magistrate. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:24:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293024 The court held that the Magistrate misdirected himself by involving in a case under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act that fell within the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate. The Magistrate's role was limited to procedural matters, not substantive investigation. The direction for parties to adduce evidence on ownership of seized money was deemed inappropriate as it was for the Enforcement Officer's investigation. The court emphasized the need for direct custody transfer of seized money to the Enforcement Officer for seamless investigation, and the admissibility of the accused's confession was to be determined by the officer conducting the inquiry, not the Magistrate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293024