A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the applicant has filed this application seeking his release on bail on the ground that his detention in Judicial custody is illegal in view of the fact that the Magistrate, First Class, Ratlam had no power to remand the applicant to judicial custody in view of S. 36a (1) (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act) which empowers the Magistrate to authorize detention of a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act. According to Shri Pyare Miya, learned counsel for the applicant the Magistrate has not been given any power to grant a remand of more than 15 days in all i. e. including the police remand or the judicial remand and, therefore, any order detaining the accused in custody is not authorized by law. Shri Pyare Miya has placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of this court in Kanwarlal v. Union of India, (Misc. Cr. Case No. 664 of 90) and a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Kalam Khan v. State. ( 2 ) ON the other hand the learned Panel Lawyer for the State Shri Desai has argued that since the case already been committed to the court of Sessions and charge sheet has been filed, therefore, the remand order passed by the Magistrate becomes immaterial because the provisions of remand are not attracted after the filing of the charge-sheet. ( 3 ) AFTER considering the respective arguments of the parties and going through the relevant provisions of the NDPS, Act, it is manifest that under Section 36a (l) when a person who is accused or suspected of committing an offence order the Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) or sub section 2 (a) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Magistrate has a power to authorize the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit, but in no case that authorization shall exceed 15, days in the whole if the Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and in the event of a Magistrate being an Executive Magistrate the authorization period cannot exceed 7 days. As such when a person arrested for being accused of commission of an offence under the NDPS Act or is suspected of having committed that offence is produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate while exercising his powers under 5. 167 (2) of the Cr. P. C shall be empowered to authorize the detention of that person either in the custody of the prosecution force or in the judicial custody. But the power of authorization given to the Magistrate under the Act cannot exceed a period of 15 days. Now, if a Magistrate on the expiry of the period of 15 days or any time before the time of expiry of detention finds that detention of such person is necessary, he shall order such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction. ( 4 ) NOW after the insertion of the aforesaid provision of forwarding the accused to a Special Court, no Special Court has been constituted in the State of M. P. Therefore, the transitional provisions contained in Section 36d of the Act shall be attracted in the present case which says that any offence committed under this Act on or after the commencement of the NDPS Amendment Act, 1988, until a Special Court is constituted under S. 36 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure be tried by a Court of Session. Then clause (2) of S. 36-D says that nothing in sub-Section (1) shall be construed a require the transfer to a Special Court of any proceedings in relation to an offence taken cognizance of by a court of Session under sub Section (1) and the same shall be heard and disposed of by the Court of Session. ( 5 ) NOW, reading the provisions contained in S. 36 A (1) (b), (c) along with the provisions contained in S. 36d it is manifest that in interdict is imposed on the powers of the Magistrate to authorize the detention beyond a period of 15 days has been given under 5. 36 (1) (c) to the Special Court which is authorized to exercise the same powers which the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under S. 167 Cr. P. C. in relation to an accused person in such case, which has been forwarded to him under that Section. According to 5. 36 (1) (c) to the Special Court which is authorized to exercise the same powers which the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under S. 167 Cr. P. C. in relation to an accused person in such case, which has been forwarded to him under that Section. According to 5. 36 D the court of Session will be the Special Court till the Special Courts are constituted and there is another provision contained in clause (2) of 5. 36 D which says that once the court of session takes cognizance of a case, then even after the constitution of the Special Court the case shall be tried by the court of Session as a special Court. As such the only course left open to the Magistrate in cases under the NDPS Act is to grant a remand judicial or police, for a maximum period of 15 days as a whole and on the expiry of the period of 15 days or before the expiry of that period the Magistrate has to forward such person to the Special court having jurisdiction. It is also pertinent to note that S. 36 A (1) (d) provides that a formal committal order to the court of Session is not necessary in the case governed by the NDPS Act. The sub-Section empowers the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence on a complainant made by the officer of the Central Government or the State Government, who may authorize to make such complaints and as such for taking cognizance by the Special court a formal committal order is not a condition precedent. From the aforesaid provisions it is abundantly clear that a Judicial Magistrate cannot authorize the detention of an accused or suspect taken into custody for an offence under the NDPS Act, for a period exceeding 15 days. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Magistrate First Class had authorized detention of the present applicant for a period beyond 15 days and as such his detention beyond a period of 15 days was illegal. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Magistrate First Class had authorized detention of the present applicant for a period beyond 15 days and as such his detention beyond a period of 15 days was illegal. 1 am fortified in my view by the view taken by this court in Kanwarlal V. Union of India (supra) and the D. B. Judgment of the Calcutta High Court Kallam Khan V. state (supra) wherein it has been held that remand of accused is permissible only for a period of 15 days and no more. In case the Magistrate may consider necessary to detain the accused for a period beyond 15 days he has to refer the case to the Special Court. A detention exceeding 15 days in unauthorized and in such circumstances the accused is entitled to be released on bail under S. 439 Cr. P. C. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances it is directed that if the applicant furnishes a bond of Rs. 20,000. 00 (twenty thousand) with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Ratlam to remain present before the trial court on every date of hearing before that court or before any other court as may be directed by that court till the conclusion of the trial, then he may be released on bail. Application allowed. .