1992 (3) TMI 90 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to order return of seized articles before the filing of a complaint by Customs Authority.
2. Interpretation of the term "police officer" in the context of Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Application of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for return of seized trawler.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case was the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to order the return of seized articles before the filing of a complaint by the Customs Authority. The petitioner, owner of the seized trawler, had filed an application under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the return of the seized trawler and other articles. The Customs Authority contended that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make orders regarding goods seized by Customs Officers before the initiation of criminal proceedings. The court referred to previous judgments and held that a customs officer is not considered a police officer within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to order the return of the seized trawler before the launch of prosecution.

Issue 2:
The interpretation of the term "police officer" in the context of Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code was crucial in determining the Magistrate's jurisdiction. Previous judgments clarified that the term "police officer" should be strictly construed to include only officers of the police department. Customs officers, although invested with certain powers of police officers, do not fall within this definition. The powers of customs officers are primarily aimed at preventing smuggling and enforcing customs duties, not maintaining law and order like police officers. Therefore, the provisions of Section 457 were held not applicable to goods seized by customs officers.

Issue 3:
The petitioners invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the return of the seized trawler for the ends of justice. The court considered the circumstances, including the fact that no smuggled goods were found on the trawler and that it was the only source of livelihood for the petitioner. Taking into account the potential damage to the trawler if detained for long and the hardships it would cause, the court ordered the Customs Authority to return the seized trawler to the petitioner under certain conditions, safeguarding the authority's right to initiate confiscation proceedings if necessary.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the Magistrate's jurisdiction regarding seized goods, interpreted the term "police officer" in the context of the Criminal Procedure Code, and utilized inherent jurisdiction for the return of the seized trawler in the interest of justice.