9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 2. Interpretation and applicability of Section 110 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 3. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to order the return of the property. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.: The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., arguing that the presence of appeal and revision provisions in the Act negates the need to invoke inherent jurisdiction. However, the petitioner contended that the provisions of appeal are not applicable in this case, and cited precedents where inherent powers were exercised to prevent abuse of the court's process. The court referred to the principles enunciated in cases like Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra and Raj Kapoor and others v. State (Delhi Administration), concluding that inherent powers can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, even when other remedies are available. Consequently, the preliminary objection was overruled. 2. Interpretation and Applicability of Section 110 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968: The petitioner argued that Section 110 of the Act mandates the trial court to deliver the seized gold to the nearest Gold Control Officer, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the provision. The respondent countered that the trial court had examined various documents and found no impediment to returning the gold to the complainant. The court examined Section 110, which outlines the procedure for handling seized gold, and noted the need to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory and whether it applies to the court or only to the police officers. The court referred to the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in R.L. Kaparia v. Munilal Charan Dass, which held that Section 110(2) does not curtail the Magistrate's powers under the Code to dispose of property and is more directory than mandatory. 3. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to Order the Return of the Property: The petitioner contended that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to return the gold to the complainant, while the respondent argued that the Magistrate had acted within his powers after examining the evidence. The court observed that Section 110(2) of the Act does not mandate the Magistrate to act in a particular way but rather guides the police officers. The court agreed with the observations in the Punjab & Haryana case that the omission of a duty on the Magistrate in Section 110(2) indicates that the legislature did not intend to curtail the Magistrate's powers under the Code. The court found no illegality or infirmity in the Magistrate's order and noted that the Customs Department could still initiate separate proceedings if necessary. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and did not constitute an abuse of the court's process. The Magistrate's decision to return the gold to the complainant was upheld, with the option for the Customs Department to initiate separate proceedings if required.
|
