Back
Manipur High Court
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.
Namichand Jain
Versus
Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs
Criminal Revn. Case No. 19 of 1961
Decided On : 12-06-1962
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (CONTROL) ACT - SECTION 6 - COMPLAINT - JURISDICTION - CUSTOMS COLLECTOR - DEFINITION - CUSTOMS HOUSE - NOTIFICATION - SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS - AUTHORITY TO FILE COMPLAINT - SEIZURE - SECTION 550 CR. P. C. - POLICE OFFICER - POWER OF SEIZURE - PROCEDURE - SECTION 180 SEA CUSTOMS ACT - APPLICABILITY - DISPOSAL OF SEIZED PROPERTY - MAGISTRATE'S ORDER - CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES - POWERS OF SEIZURE - HARASSMENT OF CITIZENS - POLICE OFFICERS - DUTY TO ACT WITHIN THE LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act for possessing 96 gross lead pencils made in Japan. The seizure was made by a sepoy of the Land Customs and an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police under section 550 Cr. P. C. Subsequently, the seized articles were handed over to the Customs Authorities, and a complaint was filed by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Silchar, under section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act, 1924, section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. The petitioner challenged the conviction on the ground that the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs had no power to file the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Silchar, was not a Customs-collector as defined under section 2(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and, therefore, had no right to file a complaint under section 6 of the said Act. The Court further held that the seizure of the articles under section 550 Cr. P. C. was not in accordance with law and that the disposal of the seized property on the orders of the Inspector-General of Police was also illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Silchar, was a Customs-collector as defined under section 2(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and, therefore, had the right to file a complaint under section 6 of the said Act? 2. Whether the seizure of the articles under section 550 Cr. P. C. was in accordance with law? 3. Whether the disposal of the seized property on the orders of the Inspector-General of Police was legal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Silchar, was not a Customs-collector as defined under section 2(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act because: a) He was not appointed as a Collector of Land Customs under section 3(1) of the Land Customs Act. b) He was not authorized by a Customs-collector to file the complaint, as required by section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. c) The notification issued under section 11(f) of the Sea Customs Act, which declares what shall be deemed to be a custom-house, did not include Silchar Circle as a custom-house. 2. The Court held that the seizure of the articles under section 550 Cr. P. C. was not in accordance with law because: a) The seizure was made on suspicion of the commission of an offence under the Customs law, not on suspicion that the articles were stolen. b) The Police Officer who seized the articles did not report the seizure forthwith to a Magistrate, as required by section 523 Cr. P. C. c) The disposal of the seized property was ordered by the Inspector-General of Police, not by a Magistrate, as required by law. 3. The Court held that the disposal of the seized property on the orders of the Inspector-General of Police was illegal because: a) The Inspector-General of Police had no power to order the disposal of the seized property. b) The disposal of the seized property should have been ordered by a Magistrate, as required by law.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.
2. The petitioner was travelling by bus on 11-3-1957 from Imphal to Dimapur. When the bus reached Mao on the way, P. W. 4 Shri P. Bhattacharjee, Sepoy of the Land Customs and P. W. 6 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police searched the luggage of the petitioner and P. W. 6 seized therefrom 96 gross lead pencils made in Japan and he prepared the seizure list Ext. A/10. The seizure was stated to be made under S. 96 (?) Cr. P. C. Ext. A/10 shows that the seizure was only of the pencils, but it now turns out that other items like bedding, trunk, blanket, wearing apparel etc. of the petitioner were also seized, for which no seizure list was prepared.
It appears that on that date, the Preventive Officer of Land Customs posted at Mao who had the power to seize the goods was out of Station and that P. W. 4, Shri Bhattacharjee, who was only a sepoy was not authorised to seize the articles. Hence, they were caused to be seized by the Assistant Sub-Inspector (P. W. 6) under section 550 Cr. P. C. Subsequently, by the order of the Inspector-General of Police dated 25-5-1957, the seized articles were directed to be handed over to the Customs Authorities and P. W. 1, the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise formally seized them and he made the seizure report Ext. A/3 on 12-5-1957, From Ext. A/3, we find it stated that as the Preventive Officer of Land Customs at Mao was out of Station on 11-3-1957, the goods were formally caused to be seized by the Police as suspicious property.
3. An enquiry by the Land Customs Department followed and the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs passed the order Ext. A/7, confiscated the pencils and also the other articles seized, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on 20-3-1958. Subsequently, on 14-11-1958, P. W. 5, the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Silchar filed a complaint for the prosecution of the petitioner under section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act, 1924, section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act on the ground that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was inadequate. The learned A. D. ML, framed charges under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, but did not frame any charge under section 7(3) of the Land Customs Act. In the course of the trial, he dropped the charge under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act on the ground that P. W. 5 was not competent to file the complaint. The A. D. M. convicted the petitioner under section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act and sentenced him to six months R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The said conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal, but while confirming the sentence of six months R. 1., the Sessions Judge set aside the sentence of fine.
4. Now in revision, the main question argued before me was that P. W. 5, the Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Silchar, had no power to file the complaint and that the petitioner cannot be convicted on a complaint filed by him. This argument was repelled by both the lower Courts. But it was again strongly pressed before me and I find that there is considerable force in the said argument.
5. Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, before its amendment by Act IV of 1960, applies to the present case. Before its amendment, section 6 was as follows :
"Section 6 - Cognizance of offences - No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 5 except upon complaint in writing made by a Customs-collector or by an Officer of Customs aut
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
