SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(Cal) 26

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
T. P. Mukherji
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, CUSTOMS, PREVENTIVE, WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
SITARAM NAVSARIA - Respondent
Criminal Revn.  988  Of  1965
Decided On : FEBRUARY 10, 1967

Advocates Appeared:
Anil Kumar Sen, MADHUSUDAN BANERJI, N.C.BANERJI, SUDHI KUMAR PODDAR

The Court has the power to pass an order under Section 523 Cr. P. C. in favour of the Customs Authorities for the purpose of giving effect to the provision of the Customs Act.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 523 - CUSTOMS ACT - SECTIONS 110, 151 - SEIZURE OF GOODS - POWER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES - ORDER OF COURT UNDER SECTION 523 CR. P. C. - APPROPRIATENESS.

Fact of the Case:

The Customs authorities applied to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for a direction on the Investigating Officers concerned to hand over the seized goods to them at the conclusion of the investigation or trial to facilitate proceedings under the Customs law against the offenders concerned. The Magistrate came to the finding that it would not be proper for the Court to pass any order in favour of the Customs Authorities as prayed for and the proper order would be to return the goods to the accused and the Customs Authorities may, if necessary, thereafter make their own independent seizure obviously from the person who takes delivery of the goods, without further reference to the Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Customs Authorities have the unfettered power of seizure of the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act and that the Court need not enter into the question of the merits of the materials which may provide the basis for the belief that the goods concerned are contraband. The Court further held that there is no question of surrendering the Court's discretion to the opinion of the Customs Authorities because all that the Court has to see in the matter of disposal of property under Section 523 Cr. P. C. is that the order that is passed is an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issues: Whether the Court can pass an order under Section 523 Cr. P. C. in favour of the Customs Authorities for the purpose of giving effect to the provision of the Customs Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Customs Authorities have the unfettered power of seizure of the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act and that the Court need not enter into the question of the merits of the materials which may provide the basis for the belief that the goods concerned are contraband. The Court further held that there is no question of surrendering the Court's discretion to the opinion of the Customs Authorities because all that the Court has to see in the matter of disposal of property under Section 523 Cr. P. C. is that the order that is passed is an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Final Decision: The Court made the two Rules absolute, set aside the orders passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, and sent the cases back to the learned Magistrate for the purpose of dealing with the petition of the Customs Authorities in accordance with law and in the light of the Court's observations.

T. P. MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two matters were heard together as the same question of law is involved in both of them. In the case out of which arises Criminal Revision Case No. 987 of 1965 certain categories of goods including mostly ball bearing and steel files of foreign origin, which were believed to be smuggled property, were seized by the police from the custody of opposite party No. 1. In the case out of which Criminal Revision Case No. 988 of 1965 has arisen the police seized a lorry loaded with bundles of cinnamon and cloves of foreign origin from the custody of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The opposite party No. 1 was the driver of the lorry and opposite party No. 5 in that case was the owner thereof. The seizure in both the cases were made by the police under Sections 54 Cr. P. C. /411 I. P. C. While the case was pending for investigation by the police the Customs authorities made an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate praying for a direction on the Invetigating Officers concerned to hand over the seized goods to them at the conclusion of the investigation or trial to facilitate proceedings under the Customs law against the offenders concerned. This petition was ordered to be put up at the conclusion of the police investigation.

( 2 ) THE police ultimately submitted final reports in both the cases and the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate then heard parties on the prayer of the Customs Authorities that the goods seized may be handed over to them. The learned Magistrate came to the finding that it would not be proper for the Court to pass any order in favour of the Customs Authorities as prayed for and the proper order would be to return the goods to the accused and the Customs Authorities may, if necessary, thereafter make their own independent seizure obviously from the person who takes delivery of the goods, without further reference to the Court. It is the propriety of the order passed in both the cases to the above effect which is the subject matter of the present Rules.

( 3 ) MR. Banerjee, appearing in support of the Rules, draws my attention to the provisions of Section 180 of the old Sea Customs Act whereunder the police was under a statutory obligation to inform the nearest Customs House about the seizure of contraband goods and also to convey the same and deposit It at the nearest Customs House after the dismissal of the complaint or the conclusion of the enquiry or trial arising out of that seizure. It is argued that the Customs Act of 1862 contains no provision analogous to the above provision in the old Sea Customs Act and that the new provision made in Sections 110 and 151 of the Customs Act fall short of the situation that prevailed under the old Sea Customs Act. Under the new Act according to Mr. Banerjee, an order of the Court under Section 516a or 517 or 523 in favour of the Customs Authorities is required to be passed for the purpose of giving effect to the provision of the Customs Act.

( 4 ) SECTION 110 of the Customs Act gives the Customs Authorities a very wide power of seizure of goods, documents and things. Section 151 of the Customs Act imposes a statutory duty amongst others on officers of police to assist the Customs Authorities in the execution of this Act.

( 5 ) THE learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has stated in his order passed in the case out of which has arisen Criminal Revision in the case No. 987 of 1965 that in order to pass an order under Section 523 Cr. P. C. in favour of the Customs Authorities, the Court will have to be satisfied about the propriety or sufficiency of the belief of the Customs Authorities that the goods concerned are contraband and that even if the Customs Department were prepared to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court in that regard, the Court should not prematurely convert itself in a forum for adjudicating the point as to whether the goods concerned are liable to seizure and confiscation under the Customs Act. According to the le




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top