9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 909 - HC - CustomsPetition for inventorisation - Smuggling - Gold - petitioner would submit that the petition for inventorisation of seized goods does not deserve indulgence of the Court for failing to address the genuine grievance or apprehension faced by the petitioner necessitating inventorisation under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The learned Magistrate has rightly gone into the entire details as per Section 110 (1B) and 110 (1C) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the Magistrate has conducted inspection and issued certificate for inventorisation of seized goods, based on the instructions from the department, nothing survives in this Criminal Revision Case. Therefore, there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai - this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Revision of order regarding inventory of seized goods under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The case involved a Criminal Revision Case filed to challenge an order related to the inventory of seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution conducted a search based on specific information at the premises of an individual, leading to the recovery of gold bars and cash. The revision petitioner was subsequently arrested under the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution then sought certification of the inventory of seized gold bars. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate certified the inventory under the relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962, after verifying the details and photographs of the seized items. The revision petitioner contested the need for inventory, arguing that the seized gold was not hazardous and did not require inventorisation. The petitioner also raised objections regarding the seizure and categorization of the gold pieces. However, the Special Public Prosecutor defended the need for certification under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The court, after hearing both sides, upheld the magistrate's decision to certify the inventory, stating that there was no error in the magistrate's order. The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed based on these findings.
|
