1969 (8) TMI 92 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
2. Powers of Customs Officers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of Section 550 of the CrPC in the context of seizure by police officers.
4. Interplay between the Customs Act and the CrPC regarding the seizure and disposal of property.
5. Validity and propriety of the Magistrate's order for the return of the seized truck.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 523 of the CrPC:
The primary issue was whether the Magistrate could pass an order under Section 523 of the CrPC for the return of the truck seized by the Customs Officer. The court examined whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to make such an order when the vehicle was seized under the Customs Act. It was argued that the Magistrate's jurisdiction is not solely dependent on a report from the police officer, and the Magistrate can make an order regarding the disposal of property seized by the police under Section 523 of the CrPC.

2. Powers of Customs Officers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The court analyzed the powers of Customs Officers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, which allows them to seize goods if they believe the goods are liable to confiscation. The Customs Officer seized the truck and goods in question under this provision. The court emphasized that the Customs Officer has broad powers to seize goods suspected to be smuggled, regardless of who has custody of them.

3. Applicability of Section 550 of the CrPC in the context of seizure by police officers:
The court discussed whether the police officer had the authority to seize the truck under Section 550 of the CrPC, which allows police officers to seize property suspected to be involved in an offense. The court noted that the police officer did not report the seizure to his superior or the Magistrate as required by Sections 550 and 523 of the CrPC. Instead, the goods were handed over to the Customs Officer, who then seized them under the Customs Act.

4. Interplay between the Customs Act and the CrPC regarding the seizure and disposal of property:
The court examined the interaction between the Customs Act and the CrPC. It was argued that once the Customs Officer seized the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 523 of the CrPC was ousted. The court referred to previous cases, such as the Bombay High Court's decision in Vasantlal v. Union of India, which supported the view that Customs Officers have the authority to seize goods even if initially seized by other authorities.

5. Validity and propriety of the Magistrate's order for the return of the seized truck:
The court concluded that the Magistrate's order to return the truck was without jurisdiction and improper. The Customs Officer had lawfully seized the truck under the Customs Act, and the Magistrate had no authority to order its return. The court set aside the Magistrate's order and directed the Magistrate to pass consequential orders in line with the petitioner's undertaking.

Conclusion:
The reference was accepted, and the impugned order dated 5th April 1969 was set aside. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umbergaon, was directed to comply with the petitioner's undertaking as per the orders given in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 111 of 1969. The court emphasized the broad powers of Customs Officers under the Customs Act and the limited jurisdiction of Magistrates in such matters.