2017 (6) TMI 34 - HC - Customs

Interpretation of statute - Magistrate - Section 3(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Seizure of goods - worn clothes - Held that - the exercise of certification of the correctness of the inventory or taking of photographs of the seized goods or drawing representative samples can be nothing but an exercise which is administrative or executive in nature within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 Cr.P.C. - the word Magistrate appearing in Section 110 (IB) and (1C) of the Customs Act, 1962 must be interpreted so as to be read as a reference to an Executive Magistrate and not to a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Seizure of goods under Customs Act, 1962 - Interpretation of Section 110 - Role of Magistrate in preparing inventory.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure of "worn clothes" by the Department of Customs, leading to a criminal complaint against four individuals. An application was made for an inventory under Section 110 (1B) of the Customs Act, 1962, which was dismissed by a Metropolitan Magistrate, prompting the Department of Customs to challenge this order.

2. Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 outlines the seizure of goods and the process for preparing an inventory. The Magistrate's role is crucial in certifying the inventory's correctness, taking photographs of the goods, or allowing the drawing of representative samples. Failure to give notice within six months can result in returning the seized goods.

3. The proper officer, empowered to seize goods, must prepare a detailed inventory at the time of seizure, including descriptions, quality, quantity, and other relevant particulars. The Magistrate is required to promptly allow applications under Section 110 (1B) and (1C) for certification or documentation of seized goods.

4. The term "Magistrate" in the Customs Act, 1962 is not explicitly defined, necessitating an understanding based on the nature of the proceedings. Reference to Section 3(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clarifies that administrative or executive functions are typically handled by an Executive Magistrate.

5. The proceedings related to inventory preparation are investigative and administrative, not adjudicatory, as they do not involve evidence evaluation or decision-making leading to penalties. Therefore, the role of the Magistrate in certifying inventory or documenting seized goods is considered administrative or executive in nature.

6. The interpretation of the term "Magistrate" in Section 110 (1B) and (1C) of the Customs Act, 1962 aligns with an Executive Magistrate's role based on Gujarat High Court's precedent. A contrary view in a previous judgment was deemed incorrect due to a lack of consideration of Section 3(4) Cr.P.C.

7. Ultimately, the petition challenging the Metropolitan Magistrate's order was dismissed as the process of inventory certification and documentation involving the Magistrate was determined to be administrative or executive in nature, warranting interpretation in favor of an Executive Magistrate.