9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14654 of 2012 are the officials of the Customs Department. 2. The applicants have preferred the present applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the First Information Report being C. R. No. II - 5449 of 2012 registered with Gandhidham "A" Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a)(e) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. 3. In the impugned F.I.R., it is inter alia alleged that the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No. 13841 of 2012 and the applicants - officials of the Customs Department of Criminal Misc. Application No. 14654 of 2012, have in collusion with each other, imported foreign brand liquor and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of the case. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the applicants - officials of the Customs Department in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14654 of 2012 has pointed out that the police is not empowered to carry out any search & seizure procedure within the territorial jurisdiction of Custom's bonded warehouse which is under the exclusive control of the Customs Department and the Central Government. Learned advocate has further contended that the police by creating ego issue, tried to usurp the powers vested in the Customs Department and unnecessarily harassed the licensee and the official of the Customs Department who were discharging their duties in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Learned advocate has also c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and that infirmity was noticed and ultimately, the punishment was given by the Department of Customs, may be believed to be true, then also, in absence of any linking evidence or allegation that licensee was out to sell somebody or out to consume unauthorizedly or alleged consumption of liquor to anybody, no provisions of Section 66(1)(b) would be applicable. 4.5 On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval has strongly opposed against quashment of the F.I.R. Learned APP has contended that though the seal was applied by the police, the Customs Department removed the same and carried out the search & seizure procedure for which they were not authorized. He has further contended that since it was the bonded wareh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Customs Department on the other hand. Instead of trying to establish supremacy over the issue in question by one or the other department, the issue could have been sorted out by the Heads of both the authorities that under whose jurisdiction, the issue falls for consideration and it has rightly been contended by learned senior advocate Mr. N. D. Nanavaty for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13841 of 2012. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah has placed on record the detailed proceedings after the procedure of search & seizure undertaken by the Customs Department and the proceedings initiated under Section 72 of the Customs Act, which runs into 29 pages. The same is ordered to be taken on record. On perusal of the same, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
