Judgment R. P. SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) PERUSED the relevant record. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was arrested on 4-1-l993 by the S. H. O. , Police Station, Sangaria for the alleged recovery of 4 kg. 800 gms. opium from his possession and a case under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) was registered against him. On 5-1-l993, he was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria, who remanded him to judicial custody. After investigation a challan was filed on 25-1-1993 against the petitioner and two others namely Ram Niwas and Kamal Singh in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria, who remanded the accused persons to judicial custody from time to time. On 6-3-l993 he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 8/18 of the Act against the petitioner. On the same day he committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh Camp Sangaria and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody with the direction he be produced in the said court on 18-3-1993. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh took cognizance and also framed charge against the petitioner. That case is now fixed for recording the prosecution evidence. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a bail application in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 6-5-1993. ( 5 ) THE main thrust of the argument of Shri Arun Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was neither authorised to remand the petitioner to judicial custody for a period of more than 15 days nor competent to take cognizance against the petitioner. According to him, the detention of the petitioner was illegal and as such he is entitled for bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) MR. S. K. Vyas, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that in this case the challan was filed within 90 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner and that the cognizance of the offence has already been taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, and that charge for the offence under Section 8/ 18 of the Act has also been framed against the petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances even if the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the said offence and to give remand for a period of more than 15 days, still then, the petitioner is not entitled for bail, keeping in view the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. ( 7 ) I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. It is true that under Section 36a (1) (b) of the Act, where a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under the Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2a) of Section 167 of the Cr. P. C. such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding 15 days in the whole where such Magistrate is Judicial Magistrate and 7 days in the whole, where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate. If such Magistrate considers that the detention of such person is unnecessary, he shall order such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction. Section 36a (1) (c) proclaims that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr. P. C. the Special Court may exercise, in relation to the person forwarded to it under Clause (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may execise under Section 167 of the Cr. P. C. in relation to an accused person in such case, who has been forwarded to him. The Special Court is also authorised under Section 36a (1) (d) of the Act to take cognizance of such offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. ( 8 ) SHRI Tyagi has placed reliance on the following cases. In Mool Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Cr LR (Raj) 354, the cognizance of the offence punishable under the N. D. P. S. Act was taken by a Judicial Magistrate. This Court quashed the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and held that the Magistrate was not competent to take such cognizance and the accused was released on bail. In Mool Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Cr LR (Raj) 354, the cognizance of the offence punishable under the N. D. P. S. Act was taken by a Judicial Magistrate. This Court quashed the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and held that the Magistrate was not competent to take such cognizance and the accused was released on bail. ( 9 ) IN Phool Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cr L. R. (Raj) 8, it has been held that a Magistrate cannot give remand beyond 15 days in cases relating to N. D. P. S. Act and that the complaint filed before him under the said Act was beyond jurisdiction. In that case the challan was filed after 90 days of the arrest of the accused and no cognizance was taken by the Special Court within 90 days. In such circumstances it was held that the accused had a right to be released on bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. Evidently such are not the facts of the case in hand, where the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge within 90 days of the arrest of the accused, who took cognizance of the offence and also framed charge within 90 days. Hence, this case renders little assistance to the accused. ( 10 ) SHRI Tyagi has also relied on Criminal Reference No. 2/91 decided on 7-2-1992 by the Kerala High Court reported in (1992) II Current Cr. Reports 1913. In that case a reference was made by a District Judge to the Kerala High Court. It was held that in view of Section 36a of the Act stipulating a period of 15 days for the remand, the Judicial Magistrate cannot authorise detention of the accused for a period exceeding 15 days, because the Special Court gets the seizin over the matter. ( 11 ) I respectfully agree with these propositions of law. Firstly because the Judicial Magistrate cannot authorise detention of an accused under the N. D. P. S. Act for a period of more than 15 days in the whole. Secondly, he cannot take cognizance of any offence under the Act. Therefore, in the instant case the detention of the petitioner after 15 days from 7-1-1993 was unauthorised. Firstly because the Judicial Magistrate cannot authorise detention of an accused under the N. D. P. S. Act for a period of more than 15 days in the whole. Secondly, he cannot take cognizance of any offence under the Act. Therefore, in the instant case the detention of the petitioner after 15 days from 7-1-1993 was unauthorised. The order dated 6-3-1993, by which the A. C. J. M. took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Act was also without jurisdiction and non est. But this is an admitted fact that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria had committed this case to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh on 6-3-1993 on which he took cognizance on 18-3-1993 and also framed charges against the petitioner. He also remanded the petitioner to the judicial custody. Thus, it is crystal clear that in this case the challan was filed within 90 days before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, who was competent to try this case, keeping in view the transitional provisions enumerated in Section 36-D of the Act, because no Special Court was constituted for Ganganagar District. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after taking cognizance of the offence under the Act remanded the petitioner to judicial custody and also framed charge against him. The said court also dismissed petitioners bail petition. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, even the petitioners detention from 22-1-1993 to 18-3-1993 was unauthorised and illegal, still then the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this ground because the Additional Sessions Judge has already taken cognizance, framed charges against the petitioner and also remanded him to judicial custody during trial. ( 13 ) SHRI Arun Tyagi has not advanced any argument on the merits of the case. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, there do not exist reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the Act. ( 14 ) HENCE, for the reasons mentioned above, I dismiss this bail petition. Petition dismissed.