JUDGMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J.:---Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7th April 1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Margao, Goa in Criminal; Misc. Application No. 30/C/90 the Collector of Customs has preferred this Criminal Writ Petition seeking the same to be quashed and set aside on the following facts.

2. On a reasonable belie that respondent No. 1 along with others is involved in smuggling activities and further on the reasonable belief that respondent No. 1 had her residence at Merces Wadi, Taluka Tiawadi, is in possession of certain currency notes directly related to the offence of smuggling goods, carried out a raid on the house of respondent No. 1 on 18th February, 1990 and seized currency notes worth Rs. 22,000/- from the said house.

3. On 31st March, 1990, respondent No. 1 Smt. Rege moved an applications before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao seeking release of the currency notes seized from her residence by the Assistant Collector. On 7-4-1990 the said application came up for hearing after notice to the Collector of Customs and was taken up by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Margao who was on that day acting as Chief Judicial Magistrate. Upon hearing both the parties, the learned trial Judge passed the impugned order directing the release of currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1. By the time the Assistant Collector could move the higher courts, the respondent No. 1 also filed an application for non-compliance and contempt of the trial court's order. That application was filed on 11th April, 1990, on which day the trial Judge directed the Assistant collector to comply with his earlier order of 7-4-1990.

4. Both these orders are challenged by the Assistant Collector in this writ petition.

5. Shri Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to deal with an application under section 457 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the respondent No. 1. According to him the Assistant Collector of Customs is not a Police Officer and as such the Criminal Courts do not have any jurisdiction to pass orders regarding disposal of property seized by a Customs Officer. In the present case according to him the Assistant Collector of Customs had not taken any proceeding either and the matter was pending inquiry with the Customs. At that stage according to Shri Khandeparkar, the learned Magistrate does not get any jurisdiction under section 457 since the Customs Officer is not a Police Officer. He therefore prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside as also the further direction dated 11-4-1990 to comply with the order.

6. Shri Diniz, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 urged that since the property has been seized by an officer of the Customs Department and the respondent No. 1 was apprehending criminal prosecution in respect thereof, the respondent No. 1 was justified in approaching the Criminal Court for the necessary relief of release of property which according to the respondent was wrongly seized. He therefore supported the impugned order.

7. Shri Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor however took up the same stand as that of the Counsel for the petitioner.

8. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 deals with orders regarding custody and disposal of property pending trials in certain cases. Section 452 of the Code deals with orders for disposal of property at conclusion of trials, while section 453 deals with payment of innocent purchaser of money found on the accused. Section 454 deals regarding right of appeal against orders passed under sections 452 or 453. Section 455 deals with destruction of libellous and other matters, while section 456 deals with power to restore possession of immovable property. All these provisions are not applicable to the present case which deals with "disposal of property seized by the Police" which is covered by secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document