9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 25 days. Simultaneously the articles seized, that is to say, 369 pieces of compact cassettes made in Japan were confiscated to the State, in spite of a petition dated 13-3-1980 filed by the petitioner Officer-in-Charge, Customs Berhampore Preventive Unit, Berhampore, Murshidabad filed before the learned Magistrate. On 13-5-1979 the police searched the house of O.P. No. 1, seized the articles mentioned above and forwarded the opposite party No. 1 to the learned Magistrate under arrest giving rise to the case noted above. In the petition aforesaid filed before the learned Magistrate the petitioner alleged that the seized goods were of foreign origin and liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfiscate goods and also prescribes a special form of procedure therefor. So the learned Magistrate, Mr Sanyal submits, should have allowed the petition of the petitioner and delivered cassettes to the petitioner for initiating confiscation proceedings under the said Act. He draws our attention specially to Ss. 104, 105, 107, 110, 111 and 122 of the Customs Act to strengthen his arguments that the Customs Act prescribes a special form for initiation of confiscation proceedings and for search and seizure of goods liable to be levied duty under the Customs Act. The contention of Mr Sanyal appears to be well founded. In fact it has been held in the case of Pukhraj Pannalal Shah Ors. v. K.K. Ganguly another reported in A.I.R. 1968 Bombay 433 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of the seized cassettes to the petitioner. Mere delivery of the cassettes to the petitioner will not mean immediate confiscation. It will be the duty of the petitioner to start confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act in the manner prescribed by the said Act. 4. From the order of the learned Magistrate it appears that the learned Magistrate was of opinion that the prayer of the petitioner was delayed. Such views in our opinion was wrong. We have already indicated that the petition was filed by the petitioner quite a long time before the learned Magistrate passed orders for confiscation of the cassettes to the State. The learned Magistrate should have borne in mind the provisions of S. 451 Cr. P.C. which contemplates order of cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
