1982 (4) TMI 72 - HC - Customs

Confiscation - Seized/confiscated goods - Criminal Procedure Code -Effect of special enactment

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in confiscation proceedings.
3. Conflict between provisions of the Customs Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Consideration of delay in passing orders for confiscation.
5. Legal principles governing confiscation of goods.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petition challenged the order of a Magistrate convicting the opposite party of an offense under S. 4(1) of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act and confiscating 369 pieces of compact cassettes made in Japan. The petitioner, an Officer-in-Charge of Customs, sought the cassettes for initiating action under the Customs Act, 1962. The Magistrate rejected the petition, leading to the challenge in the High Court.

2. The advocate for the petitioner argued that the Customs Act provides special powers to Customs Officers for confiscation of goods and prescribes a specific procedure. Citing relevant sections of the Customs Act, the advocate contended that the Magistrate should have allowed the petition for initiating confiscation proceedings under the Act. Previous judgments emphasized the Act's unique procedure for investigating offenses, supporting the petitioner's argument.

3. The High Court analyzed the conflict between the provisions of the Customs Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. Referring to S. 5 of the Cr. P.C., the Court held that the provisions of the Customs Act regarding confiscation prevail over those of the Cr. P. C. Specific sections of the Customs Act were highlighted to demonstrate the Act's detailed procedure for confiscation and search and seizure of goods.

4. The Court addressed the Magistrate's view on the delay in the petitioner's prayer for confiscation. It noted that the petition was filed well before the Magistrate's order for confiscation to the State. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate should have considered provisions like S. 451 Cr. P.C. for custody and disposal of property pending trial, indicating that delay alone should not be a ground for rejection.

5. Lastly, the High Court reiterated that confiscation of goods should only occur in exceptional cases for reasons of social safety or security, as statutorily permitted. Given the elaborate provisions of the Customs Act independent of the Cr. P. C., the Court held the Magistrate's decision to confiscate the cassettes to the State as wrong. The High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the seized cassettes to be delivered to the petitioner for initiating appropriate proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.