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

1963 Supreme(Cal) 90

AMARESH ROY
THANDULAL DHANUKA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AJIT KUMAR DUTT, Anath Bandhu Pal, Anil Kumar Sen, Nikhil Chandra, Nikhil Chandra Talukdar

AMARESH ROY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Revision Cases have been heard together as they arise out of the same case now pending in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, and raise same point regarding the power and control of the Court of the Magistrate over the goods seized by the Customs authorities upon search warrant issued by the Magistrate under Section 172 of the Sea Customs Act.

( 2 ) RELEVANT facts for the purpose of these two cases are that a proceeding started in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, when on September 16, 1962, two persons were produced in that Court under arrest under Section 175 of the Sea Customs Act. On that day, on the prayer of the Customs authorities, search warrants were directed to be issued by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. On the next day, that is, September 17, 1962, an application was made by the Customs authorities that as a result of the searches on the previous day, they had reasons to suspect that the documents connected with illegal importation of goods seized at those previous searches and contraband goods are secreted in the Locker No. 236b at the United Bank of India, Jorasanko Branch. In accorda



















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top