P JASEEN BEEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's husband, one Peer Mohamed alias Shahul Hameed, was arrested for offences under Secs.8, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter called the Act. As the case in which the said Peer Mohamed Alias Shahul Hameed was involved was under investigation, he was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence No.1), Egmore, Madras-8 on 4.2.1991 and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, remanded the said Peer Mohamed to custody till 18.2.1991. Subsequently, the remand period of the accused Peer Mohamed was extended on 4.3.1991, 18.3.1991 and 1.4.1991. THE bail application filed on behalf of the accused in M.P.No.256 of 1991 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence No. 1), Madras, was dismissed on 11.3.1991. A similar bail application filed before the Principal Sessions Court, Madras in M.P.No.1231 of 1991 was dismissed on 15.3.1991. THEreafter, the wife of the accused, Peer Mohamed, has filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of her husband Peer Mohamed before this court and for setting him at liberty.

(2.) MR.S.Thiruvenkatasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of Sec.36-A(I)(b) of the Act contemplates that where a person accused of the commission of the offence under the Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under Sub-sec.(2) or (2-A) of Sec.167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate. In this case the Special Court is the Sessions Court as defined under Sec.36 of the Act and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has no jurisdiction to try the case and he was barred under the statute to authorise any detention beyond the period of fifteen days and the remand authorised by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras from time to time beyond 18.2.1991 is without Jurisdiction and illegal and, therefore, the petitioner's husband is entitled to be set at liberty.

(3.) IN view of the above position, it cannot be said that the detention of the petitioner's husband is unauthorised detention and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. IN these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.