1969 (2) TMI 178 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to order the return of seized property under Section 523, Criminal Procedure Code.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a revision petition against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerning the return of a car seized by the Customs Preventive Staff. The Customs Preventive Staff had intercepted a car carrying gold bars believed to have been imported without a permit. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate initially allowed the return of the car to the respondent, which was opposed by the Customs Preventive Department. The Assistant Collector Customs filed a revision petition against this decision.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate's order could not be sustained under Section 516(A) or 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code but could be sustained under another section. The Assistant Collector Customs then appealed to the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to order the return of the car under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The main contention was whether Customs Officers could be considered as police officers under Section 523. The Court analyzed previous decisions and concluded that Customs Officers do not fall within the definition of police officers. Customs Officers' powers are distinct from those of police officers, focusing on customs-related matters rather than crime prevention and law enforcement.

The Court emphasized that the Customs Act provides procedures for the confiscation of seized property by Customs Officers. Sections 122, 124, and 125 outline the process, and Section 110(2) allows for the return of goods if no notice is given within a specified period. Therefore, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to make orders regarding goods seized by Customs Officers before criminal proceedings were initiated.

The Court also rejected the argument for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code to order the return of the car due to deterioration, stating that such powers should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases only. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified that Customs Officers are distinct from police officers, and the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to order the return of seized property under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the absence of criminal proceedings. The Court highlighted the procedural framework under the Customs Act for the confiscation of goods seized by Customs Officers.