https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308817 The High Court held that under Section 309 Cr.P.C., the court does not have the discretion to remand an accused to police custody post-cognizance, limiting such custody to judicial custody. Additionally, the High Court clarified that its constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227 are not overridden by Section 19 of the TADA Act, enabling it to quash the Designated Court's order. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and making the rule absolute as per the petitioner's requested relief. en-us Thu, 20 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:03:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308817 The High Court held that under Section 309 Cr.P.C., the court does not have the discretion to remand an accused to police custody post-cognizance, limiting such custody to judicial custody. Additionally, the High Court clarified that its constitutional powers under Articles 226 and 227 are not overridden by Section 19 of the TADA Act, enabling it to quash the Designated Court's order. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and making the rule absolute as per the petitioner's requested relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308817