1985 (8) TMI 382 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the criminal court to pass an order for interim custody of seized goods or vehicles.
2. Application of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in relation to seized goods.
3. Interpretation of Sections 110, 115, 124, and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to Pass an Order for Interim Custody of Seized Goods or Vehicles:
The primary issue revolves around whether a criminal court has jurisdiction to order interim custody of goods or vehicles seized under the Customs Act. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence argued that a criminal court lacks such jurisdiction because the seized goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, and only the adjudicating authorities under the Act have the power to retain custody and pass orders of confiscation. The court examined Sections 110, 115, 124, and 125 of the Customs Act, which collectively indicate that the authority to deal with seized goods lies with the Customs officers and not with the criminal court.

2. Application of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in Relation to Seized Goods:
The petitioner, Randhir Singh, contended that Section 451 of the CrPC, which empowers a criminal court to make orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial, should apply to the seized trucks. However, the court noted that Section 451 applies only to property produced before the court during an inquiry or trial. Since the trucks were not produced before the court, the criminal court had no jurisdiction to make an order regarding their interim custody. The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in *Remo Paul Altoe v. Union of India*, which held that a criminal court could not pass an order of confiscation under Section 452(1) of the CrPC if the property was not produced before it.

3. Interpretation of Sections 110, 115, 124, and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The court delved into the specific provisions of the Customs Act:
- Section 110 allows Customs officers to seize goods believed to be liable for confiscation.
- Section 115 deals with the confiscation of conveyances used for smuggling unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance.
- Section 124 mandates a show-cause notice before confiscation, ensuring natural justice.
- Section 125 provides for the option of paying a fine in lieu of confiscation.

The court concluded that these sections collectively vest the power to retain custody and order confiscation of seized goods with the Customs authorities, not the criminal court. The court emphasized that the criminal court's jurisdiction is limited to property produced before it, and mere filing of a complaint does not transfer custody from Customs authorities to the court.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that directed the interim custody of truck No. HRN-2341 to Mal Singh, holding that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction as the trucks were not produced before it. The petition by Randhir Singh for the release of truck No. CHW-4831 was dismissed, reinforcing that the Customs authorities retain control over the seized trucks until proper adjudication under the Customs Act. The court clarified that interested parties could apply for interim custody if and when the trucks are produced during the inquiry or trial.