1989 (7) TMI 110 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to direct the release of passports and return air tickets.
2. Validity of the seizure of passports and return air tickets by Customs Authorities.
3. Inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to direct the release of passports and return air tickets:
The petitioners, Keralites working in West Asia, were arrested and had their passports and return air tickets seized by Customs Authorities u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. They filed petitions before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, requesting the release of these documents. The Magistrate dismissed the petitions, stating he had no jurisdiction to issue such directions. The High Court confirmed that the Magistrate has no power to direct Customs Authorities to return passports or return air tickets, as the Code does not vest such power except by virtue of provisions in Chapter XXXIV dealing with the disposal of property.

2. Validity of the seizure of passports and return air tickets by Customs Authorities:
The Customs Authorities seized the primary gold, passports, and return air tickets of the petitioners, believing these items were relevant to adjudication proceedings u/s 110 of the Act. The High Court upheld the validity of the seizures, referencing the decision in Devadasan Dayalal v. Collector of Customs, which confirmed that a passport is a "document" for the purpose of Section 110. The court found that the documents were useful for adjudication proceedings, and the seizure was justified.

3. Inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioners sought the High Court's intervention u/s 482 of the Code to direct the Customs Authorities to return the seized documents. The High Court clarified that Section 482 does not confer new powers but recognizes inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. These powers are related to proceedings pending before or disposed of by Criminal Courts. The court concluded that inherent power cannot be exercised in relation to the conduct of an authority not functioning under the Code or to non-criminal proceedings. The High Court declined to interfere, noting that the acts attributed to the petitioners were of a grave nature affecting the country's economy and well-being. The Crl. M.Cs were dismissed.