1979 (11) TMI 275 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the interception and search of the motor trucks.
2. Validity of the prosecution under sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Jurisdiction and authority of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) to transfer cases under section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
4. Grounds for transfer of the case from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) to the CMM.
5. The impact of remarks made by the trial Magistrate on the investigation conducted by Customs Officers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Interception and Search of the Motor Trucks:

The Customs Officers, acting on prior information and intelligence, intercepted two motor trucks suspected of carrying smuggled goods. The interception occurred near the New Bombay Bridge and the Golf Club within Chembur limits. Both trucks were found to contain contraband items such as wristwatches, sarees, and textiles valued at Rs. 18,43,898/- and Rs. 16,42,713/- respectively. The search was conducted in the presence of panch-witnesses and followed proper procedures, leading to the apprehension of four individuals.

2. Validity of the Prosecution:

The accused were prosecuted under sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Two separate complaints were lodged for each truck, and the cases were assigned to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM). The accused in one of the cases admitted to traveling in the truck but denied knowledge of the contraband goods. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused, criticizing the investigation for not apprehending the main culprits and only prosecuting the carriers.

3. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) to Transfer Cases:

The CMM has the authority under section 410 of the CrPC to withdraw or recall any case made over to any Magistrate subordinate to him and may inquire into or try such case himself or refer it for inquiry or trial to any other competent Magistrate. The CMM's power to transfer cases is not limited to administrative grounds but extends to judicial grounds as well.

4. Grounds for Transfer of the Case:

The Customs Officers requested the transfer of the second case from the ACMM to the CMM due to the remarks made by the trial Magistrate in the first case, which criticized the investigation. The CMM agreed to the transfer, recognizing that the identical nature of the evidence and the remarks made by the trial Magistrate could prejudice the second trial. The CMM's decision was based on the need to ensure a fair trial and avoid any potential bias.

5. Impact of Remarks Made by the Trial Magistrate:

The trial Magistrate's remarks criticized the investigation for not apprehending the main culprits and only prosecuting the carriers. These remarks were considered significant enough to warrant the transfer of the second case to avoid any potential prejudice. The CMM's order to transfer the case was upheld, emphasizing that the remarks made by the trial Magistrate could impact the fairness of the second trial.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the CMM's order to transfer the second case from the ACMM to the CMM, recognizing the need for a fair trial and avoiding potential prejudice due to the remarks made by the trial Magistrate. The CMM's authority to transfer cases under section 410 of the CrPC was affirmed, and the decision was based on both administrative and judicial grounds. The stay of proceedings granted at the time of admission was vacated, and the order of the CMM was confirmed.