2012 (4) TMI 710 - HC - Customs

Court upholds order denying return of seized gold bars under Customs Act, directs expedited criminal proceeding.

The court upheld the order denying the return of seized gold bars under the Customs Act. While acknowledging the rule prohibiting return of evidence until ... Article admitted in evidence not to be returned until the appeal period expires - exhibited as material exhibit - redemption fine precludes forfeiture - supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 - Rule 170 Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985Article admitted in evidence not to be returned until the appeal period expires - exhibited as material exhibit - Rule 170 Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 - Whether the seized gold bars exhibited in the criminal trial could be ordered returned to the petitioner pending disposal of the proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that the seized gold bars have been exhibited in the instant case as material exhibits and reproduced Rule 170, which prohibits return or destruction of articles admitted in evidence until the appeal has been disposed of or, where no appeal is preferred, until six months after the period of appeal has expired. The Rules were framed by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and have the force of law. The Court declined to exercise inherent powers to act contrary to the embargo contained in Rule 170 and therefore did not direct immediate return of the exhibits during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8]No immediate return of the exhibited seized gold bars pending conclusion of the proceedings in view of Rule 170.Redemption fine precludes forfeiture - supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 - What directions should be given regarding final disposal of the seized gold bars in light of the petitioner's payment of redemption fine. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the Collector of Customs, after adjudication under the Customs Act, had permitted return of the seized gold bars on payment of redemption fine and that the petitioner had produced documents showing payment of the redemption fine. Bearing in mind that payment of the redemption fine means the goods cannot be forfeited to the State at the conclusion of trial, the Court directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the criminal proceedings expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments and, upon conclusion, to dispose of the seized gold bars in accordance with law while taking into account that the redemption fine has been paid and forfeiture would not lie. [Paras 3, 8, 9, 10]Magistrate to expedite the criminal trial and, upon its conclusion, dispose of the exhibited seized gold bars in accordance with law, bearing in mind that the redemption fine has been paid and the goods cannot be forfeited to the State.Final Conclusion: Revisional petitions disposed; no order for immediate return of the exhibited seized gold bars while proceedings are pending because of Rule 170, but the Magistrate is directed to expedite trial and, after conclusion, to dispose of the exhibits in accordance with law taking into account that the redemption fine has been paid and forfeiture is not available. Issues involved: Challenge to order denying return of seized gold bars u/s Customs Act, interpretation of Rule 170 of Calcutta High Court Criminal Rules, 1985, exercise of inherent powers contrary to court rules.In the judgment, the petitioner challenged an order by the Metropolitan Magistrate denying the return of seized gold bars. The petitioner argued that the Collector of Customs, u/s Customs Act, allowed return of the gold bars upon payment of redemption fine, which had already been paid. The court noted that the seized gold bars had been exhibited as material evidence in the case. Rule 170 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal Rules, 1985 states that no article admitted in evidence shall be returned or destroyed until the appeal is disposed of or after six months if no appeal is filed. The court acknowledged the rule's force of law and hesitated to go against it. However, considering that the redemption fine had been paid, the court directed the Magistrate to expedite the criminal proceeding without unnecessary adjournments. The seized gold bars were to be disposed of in accordance with the law after the conclusion of the proceeding, taking into account that the petitioner had already paid the redemption fine, preventing forfeiture to the State. The revisional application and related matters were disposed of with these directions, and the Criminal Section was instructed to provide certified copies of the order promptly to the parties involved.