Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 679
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - Appellant
Versus
PRK Diamonds Pvt Ltd and Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4316, 4767 of 2016; Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17965, 20232, 19836 of 2016, 12268, 16064, 16066 of 2017
Decided on : 24-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Satish Aggarwala, Adv., Dalip Singh, Adv.
Headnote:
Customs Act, 1962 - Section 110, 128, 132, 135, 162 - Searches - Seizures - Confiscation of contraband - Mercedes car containing 8 Kg. of gold was seized - Accused were arrested for carrying smuggled gold - Release of the said Mercedes car on superdari - Matter was still at the stage of investigation - Section 451 of the Cr.PC, 1973 would not apply - Non-existence of a specific bar to the jurisdiction of Courts - Release of the seized goods during investigation by the Customs Authority - Trial Court could not have invoked for release of the vehicles - Seizure of the two vehicles was not subject matter of any ' inquiry' or 'trial' before the learned CMM - Impugned orders of the Trial Court are set aside - petition is allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The case involves the confiscation and release of vehicles under the Customs Act, 1962, and the applicability of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, during investigation and trial stages (!) (!) .
-
The order for release of vehicles on superdari during investigation is contested, with arguments that the Customs Act, being a special law, overrides general criminal procedure provisions, and that the jurisdiction to release seized vehicles is limited (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasizes that the seizure of vehicles under the Customs Act is not subject to inquiry or trial at the time of their release, and that Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, is not applicable during the investigation phase under the Customs Act (!) (!) .
-
The law permits the Customs authorities to order confiscation of goods and vehicles, and ownership vests with the Central Government upon confiscation. The process involves adjudication, and the possibility of redemption or payment of fines in lieu of confiscation exists (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court notes that the interim release of vehicles on conditions such as executing bonds or providing security does not diminish the ultimate authority of the Customs Department to confiscate or adjudicate the property (!) (!) .
-
The judgments and procedures applicable to the release of vehicles under other laws, such as the NDPS Act or Indian Forest Act, are distinguished, highlighting that specific statutes have provisions for confiscation and appeal that may differ from the Customs Act (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court underscores that the proper legal process involves the Customs Department's adjudication and appeals, and that the criminal courts' jurisdiction is limited during the investigation stage, especially regarding the release of confiscated goods or vehicles (!) (!) .
-
The court concludes that the orders permitting the release of vehicles on superdari during investigation are not sustainable, as the seizure was not part of an inquiry or trial at that point, and thus, the orders are set aside (!) (!) .
-
It is clarified that the confiscation orders passed by the Customs authorities are separate and remain open to challenge through appropriate legal channels (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasizes the importance of following the statutory procedures under the Customs Act for seizure, confiscation, and disposal, and that interim measures should not undermine the final adjudicatory process (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the legal principles governing the seizure, confiscation, and release of vehicles under the Customs Act, and clarify the limits of judicial intervention during the investigation phase.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioner, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, assails vide these two petitions a common order dated 31.8.2016 of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide which a Mercedes car bearing No. DL-1CQ-7525 containing 8 Kg. of gold which was seized from it on 8.12.2015 qua which one Mr. Sunny Kakkar and one Ahadees K were arrested, for carrying smuggled gold registered in the name of M/s PRK Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. of which Mr.Sunny Kakkar was its director, permitted the release of the said Mercedes car on superdari and vide the said order also permitted the release of a Honda City car bearing No. DL-4CAH 8319 which was alleged to have been utilized for carrying smuggled gold on superdari to Sh. Inder Prakash Kohli @ Baboo who had been arrested along with Mr.Vinod Khanna and Mr.Hari Sharan Khanna on 20.6.2014 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 132/135 of the Customs Act, 1962 in connection with the recovery of gold bars weighing 5 Kgs valued at 1,24,22,475/- as per the tariff value as per the customs notification No. 46/14/NT/96/2014 with market value at Rs. 13,65,5000/- seized vide panchnama dated 29.6.2014. Both the vehicles referred to herein above were allowed to be released on superdari holding that in view of the verdict of this Court in the case of Manjeet Singh v. State, in Crl.M.C. No. 4485/2013 and Crl. M.A. No. 16055/2013, the vehicle seized during the investigation including those seized under the provisions of the Customs Act ought to be released to the registered owner of the vehicle on the undertaking that in the event of confiscation of the vehicle in adjudication proceedings, the registered owner would furnish a bond to the value of the vehicle to the department or as ordered by the department and it was observed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to the effect that the vehicles if not released, would deteriorate with time and if not released the upkeep thereof would drain the resources and the space and that the presumption of inconvenience has to be given due weightage and the accused ought not to be penalized indirectly.
2. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended that the presumption having been drawn under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the vehicles are liable to confiscation and that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, has no jurisdiction to release the same on any condition whatsoever. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the vehicle having been produced before the Court could not have been released in terms of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. and that the Customs Act, 1962 being a Special Act under which the vehicles used for receiving, carrying and transporting smuggled goods had been seized as per the provisions of the Customs Act, the provisions of the Special Act override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that there is no inherent power vested with the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to release the said vehicles on superdari. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the vehicles were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 and on confiscation, the ownership of the vehicle vests with the Central Government and that at the time of confiscation the vehicle has to be offered to the Central Government and that the Central Government cannot be relegated for institution of a civil suit for recovery or possession of the vehicle.
3. Inter alia it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the reliance placed in the impugned order on the verdict of this Court in Manjeet Singh v. State (supra) is misplaced in as much as it does not deal with the aspect of the vehicle liable to be confiscated.
4. A catena of verdicts was relied upon on behalf of the petitioners to contend that there had been an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are as under:
i. Assistant Coll
