9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in passing an order of disposal of confiscated goods. 2. Applicability of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in correcting illegal acts by subordinate courts. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in passing an order of disposal of confiscated goods The petitioner, an Assistant Collector of Central Excise, challenged the order of the Magistrate directing the return of primary gold seized in a smuggling case to the second accused. The petitioner argued that the gold had been confiscated and vested with the Central Government through adjudication proceedings, thus contending that the Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to pass any disposal order regarding the confiscated items. The petitioner relied on a previous decision to support this argument. The Magistrate had convicted the first accused but acquitted the others and ordered the return of the seized gold to the second accused. The petitioner contended that the order was unlawful due to the confiscation and vesting of the gold with the Central Government. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in correcting illegal acts by subordinate courts The respondent's counsel argued that the Code provides for an appeal process, making the current petition not maintainable. They cited a decision to support this stance. In response, the petitioner's counsel cited other rulings to counter this argument. The High Court, in its judgment, clarified that under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it can correct illegal acts committed by subordinate courts, especially in cases involving jurisdictional issues or orders of confiscation that vested property with the Union of India. The court emphasized that in exceptional cases where illegality is evident, it is within its jurisdiction to intervene and rectify such errors. The court disagreed with the respondent's counsel that Section 482 need not be invoked when the Code provides for an appeal process. The court ultimately set aside the order directing the return of the confiscated gold to the second accused, thereby allowing the petition. In conclusion, the High Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, corrected the illegal act committed by the Magistrate in ordering the return of confiscated gold, which had been vested with the Central Government. The court emphasized the exceptional nature of the case and the need to ensure justice by overturning the erroneous disposal order.
|
