1983 (6) TMI 34 - HC - Central Excise

Accused not produced before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate within 24 hours - Special Acts - Bail

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure and Arrest Procedures
2. Magistrate's Authority and Remand Powers
3. Bail Applications and Statutory Periods
4. Applicability of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to Special Acts
5. Constitutional Mandates and Judicial Powers

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seizure and Arrest Procedures
The Customs Officers in Ahmedabad seized gold worth Rs. 1.40 crores, miscellaneous foreign goods, Indian currency, a pistol, and vehicles from a bungalow on April 15/16, 1982. Several suspects were arrested, including the applicant, who was apprehended on April 20, 1982. The applicant was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) and was later arrested under the Arms Act, Foreigners Act, and Indian Passport Act on different dates.

2. Magistrate's Authority and Remand Powers
The Customs Authorities informed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on April 21, 1982, about their inability to produce the applicant within 24 hours. The Magistrate discharged other arrested individuals on May 28, 1982, citing a lack of power to send them to judicial custody. The High Court quashed this order, affirming the Magistrate's power to remand individuals under Section 437 of the CrPC and Section 68 of the Gold Control Act.

3. Bail Applications and Statutory Periods
The applicant filed multiple bail applications, all of which were rejected. The principal argument was that the applicant was entitled to bail under proviso A(ii) to Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as the investigation exceeded the statutory period of sixty days. The Full Bench decision in Babubhai Parshottamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat was cited, which mandated release on bail if the statutory period was exceeded.

4. Applicability of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to Special Acts
The Court examined whether Section 167 of the CrPC applied to investigations under the Gold Control Act, Customs Act, Arms Act, and Foreigners Act. The Court noted that the Customs Officer, despite having powers akin to a police officer, is not considered a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Court referenced previous decisions, including Illies v. The Collector of Customs and State of Punjab v. Barket Ram, to support this distinction.

5. Constitutional Mandates and Judicial Powers
The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate under Article 21, which guarantees the right to personal liberty. It highlighted that detention beyond the specified period without trial commencement violates this fundamental right. The Court cited Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, which ruled that prolonged detention without trial is illegal.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that while Section 167(2) of the CrPC might not apply in terms to the Customs and Gold Control Acts, the underlying principle of expeditious investigation and trial must be upheld. The Court directed the single Judge to reconsider the bail applications in light of these principles and relevant facts.

Stay of Implementation:
The implementation of this order was stayed for four weeks to allow the Union Government to decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.

← Previous Next →