TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the detention controls in Sections 167(2) and 167(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply to a person arrested by a Customs Officer under the Customs Act, 1962 and produced before a Magistrate. (ii) Whether the petitioners, having remained in judicial custody for more than 60 days in a case punishable with imprisonment of less than 10 years, were entitled to be released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether the detention controls in Sections 167(2) and 167(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply to a person arrested by a Customs Officer under the Customs Act, 1962 and produced before a Magistrate.
Analysis: The Customs Act does not prescribe a complete procedure governing remand or detention of a person arrested by a Customs Officer and produced before a Magistrate. In that field, the Code applies by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory scheme of Sections 437 and 167 of the Code, read with the powers and duties of Customs Officers under Sections 103 and 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, shows that the Magistrate's power to grant or refuse bail necessarily carries with it power to order detention, but that power is controlled by the safeguards in Section 167(2) and Section 167(3). The expressions in Section 167 are to be suitably read in the context of Customs arrests, and the absence of an express remand provision in the Customs Act does not exclude the operation of the Code.
Conclusion: The provisions of Sections 167(2) and 167(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply to persons arrested under Section 103(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and produced before a Magistrate under Section 103(2) of that Act.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners, having remained in judicial custody for more than 60 days in a case punishable with imprisonment of less than 10 years, were entitled to be released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The offence alleged under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine, so the outer limit for authorised detention under the proviso to Section 167(2) was 60 days. Since the petitioners had already remained in custody beyond that period and were prepared to furnish bail, the statutory consequence under the proviso followed.
Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to be released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Conclusion: Custody of a person arrested under the Customs Act is subject to the same statutory safeguards on remand and default bail that operate under the Code, and continued detention beyond the prescribed period could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special enactment does not provide a complete scheme for remand and detention, the corresponding procedural safeguards in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply, and the right to default bail under Section 167(2) cannot be denied merely because the arrest was made under the Customs Act, 1962.
TaxTMI 
