1994 (1) TMI 87 - SC - Customs

Whether a Magistrate before whom a person arrested under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 which is in pari materia with sub-section (1) of Section 104 of the Customs Act of 1962, is produced under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, has jurisdiction to authorise detention of that person under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Held that - .There is a series of decisions of various High Courts, of course with some exception, taking the view that a Magistrate before whom a person arrested by the competent authority under the FERA or Customs Act is produced, can authorise detention in exercise of his powers under Section 167. Otherwise the mandatory direction under the provision of Section 35(2) of FERA or 104(2) of the Customs Act, to take every person arrested before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay when the arrestee was not released on bail under sub-section (3) of those special Acts, will become purposeless and meaningless and to say that the Courts even in the event of refusal of bail have no choice but to set the person arrested at liberty by folding their hands as a helpless spectator in the face of what is termed as legislative causes omissus or legal flaw or lacuna, it will become utterly illogical and absurd. Thus Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 167 are squarely applicable with regard to the production and detention of a person arrested under the provisions of Section 35 of FERA and 104 of Customs Act and that the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 167(2) to authorise detention of a person arrested by any authorised officer of the Enforcement under FERA and taken to the Magistrate in compliance of Section 35(2) of FERA.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 167(2) of CrPC for detention of a person arrested under Section 35 of FERA or Section 104 of the Customs Act.
2. Interpretation of the term "accused" in the context of Section 167 of CrPC.
3. Applicability of Section 4(2) of CrPC to offenses under special laws like FERA and Customs Act.
4. Powers of enforcement officers under FERA and Customs Act compared to police officers under CrPC.
5. Legislative intent and statutory interpretation principles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate under Section 167(2) of CrPC:
The primary issue was whether a Magistrate has the jurisdiction to authorize the detention of a person arrested under Section 35 of FERA or Section 104 of the Customs Act under Section 167(2) of CrPC. The Court held that the Magistrate does have such jurisdiction. The judgment clarified that the provisions of Section 35(2) of FERA and Section 104(2) of the Customs Act serve as a substitute for Section 167(1) of CrPC, fulfilling the basic conditions required for invoking Section 167(2). Therefore, the Magistrate can authorize the detention of a person arrested under these special Acts.

2. Interpretation of the term "accused":
The term "accused" in Section 167 of CrPC was interpreted broadly. The Court noted that the word "accused" in Section 167(1) and (2) includes any person arrested under Section 35 of FERA or Section 104 of the Customs Act. This interpretation aligns with the explanation to Section 273 of CrPC, which includes a person in relation to whom any proceeding under Chapter VIII has been commenced. The Court emphasized that the term "accused" is used generically to denote a person whose liberty is restrained on arrest by a competent authority.

3. Applicability of Section 4(2) of CrPC:
Section 4(2) of CrPC was held to be applicable to offenses under special laws like FERA and Customs Act. The Court stated that in the absence of any specific exclusionary provision in these special Acts, the general procedural law under CrPC, including Section 167, would apply. The Court emphasized that Section 4(2) ensures that all offenses under any law other than IPC are investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of CrPC unless there is a specific provision to the contrary in the special law.

4. Powers of enforcement officers:
The Court examined whether enforcement officers under FERA and Customs Act exercise powers similar to police officers under CrPC. It was concluded that while these officers are not police officers in the strict sense, they do possess certain analogous powers such as arrest, seizure, and interrogation. The Court noted that these powers are sufficient to invoke Section 167(2) of CrPC for authorizing detention by a Magistrate.

5. Legislative intent and statutory interpretation:
The judgment emphasized the principles of statutory interpretation, stating that laws should be interpreted to further the ends of justice and not frustrate them. The Court cited various authorities to support a purposive interpretation of statutes, ensuring that legislative intent is fulfilled even if the language of the statute is not explicit. The Court rejected a narrow and literal interpretation that would lead to absurdity or practical inconvenience.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to authorize the detention of a person arrested under Section 35 of FERA or Section 104 of the Customs Act under Section 167(2) of CrPC. The term "accused" in Section 167 includes any person arrested under these special Acts. Section 4(2) of CrPC applies to offenses under FERA and Customs Act, and enforcement officers under these Acts possess sufficient powers to invoke Section 167(2). The judgment emphasized a purposive interpretation of statutes to ensure justice and fulfill legislative intent. The appeal was allowed, and the decision in O.P. Gupta was upheld.