2020 (4) TMI 1 - HC - Customs

Search of bonded warehouse - Import of foreign brand liquor and beer without pass-permit for the stock - offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 - HELD THAT - Indisputably, the bonded warehouse was under the control and supervision of the Customs Department and the Central Government only and the police has nothing to do with it. This is a classic case wherein the police played a role by making egoistic approach to usurp the powers of Customs Department. The police was not authorized to carry out any search seizure procedure except requesting for the same to the Department or to the Central Government. The police at its own could not have made any venture of searching the bonded warehouse belonging to the Customs Department. There appears no iota of evidence or material to prosecute the present applicants in connection with the impugned F. I. R. - applications allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashment of FIR under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e), and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
2. Jurisdictional conflict between Police Department and Customs Department.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashment of FIR under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e), and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949:
The applicants sought quashment of the FIR alleging collusion in importing foreign brand liquor and beer without permits for sale. The licensee argued that as a bonded warehouse operator, the Gujarat Prohibition Act did not apply. The Customs Department officials contended that police lacked authority over the bonded warehouse and interfered with their duties. The licensee's counsel cited a Supreme Court case to support their position. It was highlighted that deficiencies were addressed by Customs authorities with no evidence of illegal intent. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed quashment, claiming unauthorized police actions. The Court reviewed submissions and found the police overstepped by searching the bonded warehouse, a matter under Customs' exclusive control. It emphasized the need for proper jurisdictional adherence and criticized the police's unauthorized actions. Ultimately, lacking evidence to prosecute, the Court quashed the FIR and related proceedings.

Issue 2: Jurisdictional conflict between Police Department and Customs Department:
The judgment highlighted a jurisdictional conflict between the Police and Customs Departments. It criticized the police for exceeding their authority by searching the Customs-controlled bonded warehouse. Emphasizing the need for inter-departmental cooperation, the Court suggested resolving such conflicts at higher administrative levels. The detailed Customs proceedings demonstrated vigilant supervision, leading to confiscation for identified irregularities. The Court acknowledged the Customs Department's effective control over import-export affairs and the due process followed in addressing discrepancies. As a result, the lack of evidence to prosecute the applicants led to the quashment of the FIR and related proceedings. The judgment underscored the importance of respecting each department's jurisdiction to ensure smooth administration and legal compliance.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues by quashing the FIR due to the lack of evidence against the applicants and highlighted the necessity of maintaining proper jurisdictional boundaries between government departments for effective governance and legal enforcement.