Order : In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.12.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur on a remand application filed by the opposite party no. 2 as being illegal and against the provision of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Initially, a writ of habeas corpus was preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same was converted into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 15.01.2016 and resultantly the said application has been put up before this Court for its disposal. 3. The facts, which are narrated in the application, are to the effect that the petitioner is one of the Directors of an Industrial Unit engaged in manufacture and sale of Iron & Steel Product under the name of M/s Nursingh Ispat Ltd. On 26.09.2015, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Jamshedpur at the factory site at the office at Jamshedpur and at the registered office at Howrah, West Bengal, in which spot summon/memo to give statement in terms of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1994 had been issued to the petitioner as well as the other officers of the Company. The petitioner was summoned on several occasions from 26.09.2015 till 20.12.2015 but according to the petitioner in spite of participating in the proceedings and rendering all co-operations, the petitioner was arrested by the opposite party no. 2 and pursuant to an application under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made before the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur, the petitioner was taken into custody on 21.12.2015. The order dated 21.12.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur is the subject matter of the present application. 4. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Roshan, learned counsel for opposite parties. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that there was no occasion for the respondent no. 2 to have arrested the petitioner and to produce him before the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur for his remand as the petitioner had extended full co-operations in the enquiry/investigation made by the Central Excise Authorities. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that there was no occasion for the respondent no. 2 to have arrested the petitioner and to produce him before the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur for his remand as the petitioner had extended full co-operations in the enquiry/investigation made by the Central Excise Authorities. It has been submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 9A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the offences under the Act have been categorized into one, which is up to Rs.1 crore and which is non cognizable and bailable, whereas if the evasion is above Rs.1 crore, the same is a cognizable and non bailable offence. Learned counsel submits that final quantifications of the alleged evasion have admittedly not been done and in such circumstance before praying for remand of the petitioner in judicial custody, no final outcome with respect to the exact amount of alleged evasion was arrived at. Learned counsel further submits that even in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that quantification of the alleged evasion has been finally assessed and that being the position, the petitioner could not have been remanded to custody on the basis of committing a non bailable offence. Mr. Sinha further submits that there has been blatant violation of the procedural safeguards incorporated in Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act as the respondent no. 2 was never empowered either to arrest the petitioner or to produce him before the nearest Magistrate for his remand into judicial custody and in such view of the matter, the remand itself being on the prayer by an officer not authorized in terms of the Act, the order dated 21.12.2015 deserves to be quashed. 6. It has also been submitted that vide Notification dated 10.02.1999 issued in exercise of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rule, 1944, the power to send persons arrested to the Magistrate under section 19 of the Act and consequential powers under section 21 of the Act has been vested with all Central Excise Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Excise and the respondent no. 2 being an Intelligence Officer and not empowered to carry out the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act committed an illegality by getting the petitioner remanded denying him his personal liberty. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been remanded without there being any First Information Report or a Complaint and in such circumstance, the remand itself is bad in law in absence of the same being preceded by institution of a criminal case. 7. Countering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Roshan, learned counsel for the opposite parties, has submitted that on 26.09.2015, the officers of the DGCEI, JRU had conducted search operations on a complaint in different premises related to M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited. During search, several incriminating articles were recovered and seized. During search of the factory, finished excisable goods were found short physically when compared with the statutory records. Learned counsel submits that preliminary scrutiny of the documents seized indicates that quantum of evasion of Central Excise duty by Narsingh Ispat Limited is to the tune of Rs.10 crores. Learned counsel further submits that prima facie when it has been established that evasion of excise duty is over and above one crore, the offence automatically in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 becomes a non bailable and cognizable offence and accordingly the prayer for remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made by the respondent no. 2. Mr. Deepak Roshan continuing with his argument has submitted that the petitioner being one of the Directors of M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited had played a major role in evasion of excise duty and he was never cooperating with the investigation made by the Central Excise Authority. Furthering his argument, learned counsel submits that prior to arrest of the petitioner, the approval of the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit was taken, which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Central Excise Act. It has also been submitted that Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act have duly been followed for producing the petitioner after his arrest before the Magistrate for his remand. It has also been submitted that Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act have duly been followed for producing the petitioner after his arrest before the Magistrate for his remand. In such circumstance, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the order dated 21.12.2015 cannot be interfered with as the opposite parties have given justifiable reasons for remand of the petitioner to judicial custody. 8. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is with respect to Section 9A(1A) of the Act by suggesting that only if the opposite parties come to a conclusion that the evasion of excise duty was to the tune of more than Rs.1 crore, the offence can be treated to be a non bailable and cognizable offence. The second part of argument is with respect to non confirming with the provisions of Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act. Addressing the first issue, it appears that the opposite parties have not disputed that final quantification of the amount of excise duty allegedly evaded by Narsingh Ispat Limited had not been finalized and the amount arrived at is a tentative or a prima facie assessment of evasion. It does not appear from the facts of the case that evasion of excise duty as alleged touches on the border line to enable the petitioner to claim that the offence is bailable and non cognizable in nature. The prima facie assessment on scrutiny of the documents and on physical verification of the materials indicate evasion of excise duty at almost Rs. 10 crores. Such tentative assessment would not give any benefit to the petitioner as the same is almost ten times to the ceiling, by which the offence can be construed to be a bailable or non bailable offence. 9. So far as the next limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned with respect to opposite party no. 2 being not empowered to get the petitioner remanded to judicial custody, it would be necessary to refer to Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which reads as under:- "19. 9. So far as the next limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned with respect to opposite party no. 2 being not empowered to get the petitioner remanded to judicial custody, it would be necessary to refer to Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which reads as under:- "19. Disposal of persons arrested.—Every person arrested under this Act shall be forwarded without delay to the nearest Central Excise Officer empowered to send persons so arrested to a Magistrate, or, if there is no such Central Excise Officer within a reasonable distance, to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station". "20. Procedure to be followed by officer-in-charge of police station.—The officer-in-charge of a police station to whom any person is forwarded under section 19 shall either admit him to bail to appear before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, or in default of bail forward him in custody to such Magistrate". "21. Inquiry how to be made by Central Excise Officers against arrested persons forwarded to them under section 19.—(1) When any person is forwarded under section 19 to a Central Excise Officer empowered to send persons so arrested to a Magistrate, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to inquire into the charge against him. (2) For this purpose the Central Excise Officer may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police-station may exercise and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)1, when investigating a cognizable case: Provided that— (a) if the Central Excise Officer is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or forward him in custody to such Magistrate; (b) if it appears to the Central Excise Officer that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall release the accused person on his executing a bond, with or without sureties as the Central Excise Officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, and shall make a full report of all the particulars of the case to his official superior". 10. 10. Section 19 very categorically states that every person arrested under this Act shall be forwarded without any delay to the nearest Central Excise Officer empowered to send persons so arrested to a Magistrate. 11. Section 21 is a follow up of Section 19, in which if the Central Excise Officer so empowered on enquiry into the charge against the accused, if he is of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion he may either admit him to bail or to appear before a Magistrate or forward him in custody to such Magistrate. It can, therefore, be deciphered from a bare reading of sections 19 and 21 of the Act that the Central Excise Officer in order to act in terms of the provisions of Sections 19 and 21 has to be empowered to carry out such provisions. 12. In the context of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a Notification dated 11.05.1999, in which in order to send a person to the Magistrate and to exercise consequential powers under section 21 of the Act, such powers have been vested with all Central Excise Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 2 being an Intelligence Officer was not empowered to act in terms of Sections 19 and 21 of the Act. This contention has not been controverted either in the counter affidavit or in course of argument and with respect to authorization what has been stated in the counter affidavit is with respect to Section 13 of the Act, which relates to power to arrest and which power was delegated to respondent no. 2 by the Additional Director General of Central Excise, Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit. The power of arrest as envisaged in Section 13 of the Act does not co relate with sections 19 and 21 of the Act. The respondent no. 2 may have been given the power to arrest, which he had exercised but nothing has been indicated as to whether he was empowered to send such person arrested to a Magistrate in order to forward him to judicial custody. The respondent no. 2 may have been given the power to arrest, which he had exercised but nothing has been indicated as to whether he was empowered to send such person arrested to a Magistrate in order to forward him to judicial custody. In absence of any authorization to act in terms of Sections 19 and 21 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the remand of the petitioner pursuant to the prayer made by an officer not authorized to forward the petitioner for remand, the consequent order of remand dated 21.12.2015 automatically gets vitiated. It has been submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remand of the petitioner is being extended from time to time without there being any such prayer made by the prosecuting agency. 13. Be that as it may, since it has already been held that the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 is not in accordance with law and the remand being contrary to the provisions of Central Excise Act enumerated above, I am inclined to allow this application. 14. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.12.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Economic Offence in C-2-1/2015 is hereby quashed and consequently the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith.