Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit, Shillong - Appellant
Versus
Ajay Babu Manda - Respondent
Crl. Petn. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2022
Decided On : 17-02-2022
Customs Act - Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Section 110, Section 110-A, Section 451 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized 1500 bags of black pepper and arrested three drivers and two helpers under the Customs Act, 1962. The owners of the trucks filed an application for release of the trucks, which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner department challenged this order before the Sessions Judge, who upheld the Magistrate's order. The petitioner then approached the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Magistrate had acted without jurisdiction in passing the order for release of the trucks under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. The Court set aside the Magistrate's order and the Sessions Judge's order, directing the respondents to approach the proper officer under the Customs Act for release of the seized vehicles.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. for release of seized goods under the Customs Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing the order for release of the trucks under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. as the Customs Act, 1962 provides specific provisions for release of seized goods under Section 110-A, and the matter was still under investigation by the Customs officials.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, directing the respondents to approach the proper officer under the Customs Act for release of the seized vehicles.
JUDGMENT
1. Matters taken up via video conferencing.
2. Challenged in these two applications is the common order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shillong in Crl. Revision No. 6 (H) of 2021 and Crl. Revision No. 5 (H) of 2021, whereby the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shillong in Crl. Misc. Applications No 25 of 2021 and Crl. Misc. Application No 26 of 2021 under Section 135(1) (a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 were upheld.
3. Brief facts as enumerated in the petition is that on the basis of specific information, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit had intercepted three trucks bearing Registration numbers AP16TH-7137, AP16TH-7277 and AP16TE-5670 on 09.04.2021 near Thangshalai village, NH-6, East Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya between 06.00 hours and 06.15 hours. On being searched, a total number of 1500 bags of foreign origin black pepper weighing about 75,000 kgs. was seized resulting in the arrest of three drivers and two helpers with the said trucks also seized under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. The owners of the trucks numbers AP16TH-7137 and AP16TH-7277 who are the respondents herein, then moved an application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong and the learned Magistrate vide a common order dated 20.07.2021 was pleased to allow the application and had then directed that the said vehicles be released on a bond of ? 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each.
5. The said order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong was then assailed by the petitioner department before the learned Sessions Judge, Shillong by way of criminal revision petitions numbered as Crl. Revision No. 5 (H) of 2021 and Crl. Revision No. 6 (H) 0f 2021, who, vide the impugned order, after hearing the parties has dismissed both the petitions holding that there is no jurisdictional infirmity with the order of the learned Magistrate.
6. The petitioner being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 has accordingly approached this Court with similar and identical petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Heard Dr. N. Mozika, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner who has submitted that the main grievance of the petitioner is the manner in which the learned Magistrate has assumed jurisdiction in releasing the said trucks which he could not have done so given the fact that there is an express provision for release of the goods (including the trucks herein) under Section 110 A of the Customs Act, where the proper officer who has caused seizure of the same under Section 110 of the said Act is empowered to release the seized goods.
8. Dr. Mozika has further submitted that the Customs Act, 1962 is a special Act and as submitted, there are specific provisions as regard arrest and seizure, particularly Section 104 which empowers the competent Custom Official to arrest any person suspected to have committed certain offences under the Customs Act. Sections 110 and 110A deals with the power of seizure and release of the seized goods and as such, exercise of powers under the code of criminal procedure by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction for which the original impugned order cannot be sustained.
9. Dr. Mozika has again submitted that the fact that the persons arrested by the Custom Officer was produced before the learned Magistrate for the purpose of remand to judicial custody is not an indication of submission to the jurisdiction of the said Magistrate, but only in compliance with the provisions of sub-Section 2 of Section 104 of the Customs Act, and more particularly when prima facie the offence is non-bailable, then resorting to sub-Section 6 of Section 104, the arrested persons were duly produced before the said Magistrate. Again, the fact that when the said arrested persons were produced before
The Customs Act, 1962 provides specific provisions for release of seized goods, and the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. is not applicable in such cases.
The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction and the applicability of specific provisions under the Customs Act, particularly Section 110-A, for the release of seized goods, overriding the gen....
The court established that an application for release of a seized vehicle during the pendency of confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of The Essential Commodities Act is not maintainable before ....
An application for release of a seized vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. during pendency of confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act is not maintainable before the M....
The right to interim custody of a vehicle remains with an innocent owner pending trial under the NDPS Act, as long as it is consistent with the Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lower courts must determine their own jurisdiction under Section 457 Cr.P.C. to release a seized vehicle during pending confiscation proce....
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
