9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Sections 4(2), 436, and 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers a Magistrate to remand to custody a person suspected of committing a non-bailable offence under the Customs Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Empowerment of Magistrate to Remand Custody under Section 104 of the Customs Act: The core issue revolves around whether Section 104 of the Customs Act, in conjunction with Sections 4(2) and 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), authorizes a Magistrate to remand a person suspected of a non-bailable offence under the Customs Act to custody. The court examined the language of Section 104 of the Customs Act and Sections 4(2) and 437 of the CrPC. Section 104 of the Customs Act: - Sub-section (1) empowers a Customs Officer to arrest a person suspected of an offence under Section 135. - Sub-section (2) mandates that the arrested person be taken to a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. - Sub-section (3) gives the Customs Officer the same powers as an officer-in-charge of a police station for the purpose of releasing the arrested person on bail or otherwise. - Sub-section (4) states that offences under the Customs Act are non-cognizable. Section 4(2) of the CrPC: - States that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the CrPC, subject to any special enactment regulating these processes. Section 437 of the CrPC: - Sub-section (1) allows a Magistrate to release on bail a person accused of a non-bailable offence unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. - Sub-section (4) mandates recording reasons for granting bail. - Sub-section (5) allows the court to arrest and commit to custody a person previously released on bail if necessary. Analysis: The court noted that the Customs Act does not provide specific procedures for criminal trials or bail, thus invoking Schedule I of the CrPC. Offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, are non-bailable. The court emphasized that a Customs Officer, although having powers of arrest, is not a police officer, thus Section 167 of the CrPC does not apply. The court rejected the argument that a Magistrate lacks the power to remand a person to custody before cognizance of the offence is taken. It was held that the refusal to grant bail inherently includes the power to remand to custody. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the Customs Act, which aims to protect the fiscal and commercial interests of the nation by treating serious violations as criminal offences. Precedent Analysis: The court referred to various precedents, including: - Ramesh Chandra Metha v. State of West Bengal, which clarified that a Customs Officer is not a police officer. - Natabar Parida v. State of Orissa, emphasizing that courts have no inherent power of remand unless conferred by law. - The Division Bench judgment in Dalam Chand Baid v. Union of India, which supported the petitioners' contention but was later dissented by the Gujarat High Court in N.H. Dave v. Mohmed Akhtar Hussain and the Kerala High Court in The Superintendent of Customs v. P.K. Umberkutty. The court agreed with the Gujarat and Kerala High Courts' view that a Magistrate has the power to commit a person to custody under Section 437 of the CrPC when produced by a Customs Officer. Conclusion: The court concluded affirmatively that Section 104 of the Customs Act, read with Sections 4(2) and 437 of the CrPC, empowers a Magistrate to remand to custody a person suspected of committing a non-bailable offence under the Customs Act. The petition was dismissed as it lacked merit.
|
