2024 (10) TMI 1363 - HC - Customs

Legality and Jurisdiction of seizure of the gold dust - violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner - jurisdiction to accost and apprehend Transit passengers, and their detention - misdeclaration - HELD THAT - Since, in this matter, gold dust is seized from the petitioner. The interest of justice would be met if the direction for not disposing of seized items until adjudication proceedings are concluded must operate. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold dust and subsequent arrest legality
2. Jurisdiction of respondent officers in detaining and seizing goods
3. Request for Writ of Mandamus and other reliefs
4. CCTV footage preservation and erasure concerns
5. Disputed questions of fact and adjudication proceedings

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief from the High Court, challenging the legality of the seizure of gold dust by Respondent No.7 and the subsequent arrest. The petitioner argued that the actions of the respondents violated fundamental rights and that the officers lacked jurisdiction to detain transit passengers and seize goods not intended for importation into India. The petitioner requested a Writ of Mandamus to release the seized gold dust, preserve CCTV footage, cancel the bail bond, compensate for monetary losses, and refrain from detaining transit passengers illegally. The Court noted the petitioner's contentions regarding the erasure of CCTV footage and the need for adjudication into disputed factual issues.

The Court referenced a Supreme Court case and a decision of the Madras High Court to emphasize the importance of fair prosecution methods and judicial oversight. While acknowledging the petitioner's concerns, the Court found that the disputed factual issues required thorough adjudication beyond the scope of Article 226 jurisdiction. The Court highlighted the complexity of the factual aspects, including the petitioner's movements and intentions, the role of CCTV cameras, and the erasure of crucial footage. As a result, the Court decided to grant limited relief and dispose of the petition while keeping all contentions open for future adjudication proceedings.

The Court directed that the seized goods should not be disposed of until the adjudication proceedings are concluded, ensuring the interest of justice. Additionally, the Court ordered that if the adjudication proceedings result unfavorably for the petitioner, the order should not be enforced for four weeks from the date of service. The Court accepted the respondent's statement regarding the issuance of a show cause notice and the conclusion of adjudication proceedings within specific timelines, emphasizing compliance with the statements made before the Court. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of without any costs, with instructions for all concerned parties to act according to the Court's order.