2007 (8) TMI 354 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of personal belongings - whether wearing apparels were neither the personal effects nor the jamatalashi? - Held that - The record shows that on 26th April, 2006, order was for release of goods which have been seized vide personal search memo which are not liable for confiscation and are not required for the purpose of investigation including the Jama talashi be released as per rules passed only after No objection has been given by Sr.P.P. Similarly, vide order dated 29th September, 2006, wearing apparels and articles of personal and daily use, which were not the case property, were ordered to be released. If the Custom Department had any grievance against the orders dated 29th September, 2006 and 13th October, 2006, then the appropriate remedy was to file appeal/revision. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not lie, since there is no abuse of process of any Court. Hence, the present petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. is without any legal substance and it is dismissed with costs of ₹ 5,000/-.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders dated 29th September, 2006 and 13th October, 2006 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. Release of goods seized by the Customs department.
3. Interpretation of wearing apparels and articles of personal search under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Application for recalling of the release order.
5. Legal remedy available against the challenged orders.

Analysis:
1. The Department of Customs filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to challenge the orders dated 29th September, 2006 and 13th October, 2006 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The orders pertained to the release of goods seized from the respondents, including currency concealed in trousers found in a suitcase.

2. The Customs department contended that the wearing apparels used for concealing currency were not personal effects and were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The release of such goods was argued to be contrary to the law. The court examined the nature of the seized goods and the provisions of the Customs Act to determine their confiscability.

3. An application for recalling the release order was made by the Customs department on 9th October, 2006, which was dismissed by the ACMM on 13th October, 2006. The court reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and the legal basis for recalling the order, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures.

4. The judgment highlighted the legal remedies available to challenge the orders, emphasizing the importance of following due process. Reference was made to previous judgments to illustrate the principle that specific legal remedies, such as appeals or revisions, should be pursued before invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Ultimately, the court found the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be lacking legal merit and dismissed it with costs imposed on the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the need for parties to exhaust available legal remedies before seeking intervention through inherent powers of the court, citing relevant case law to support this principle.