Executive Magistrate jurisdiction governs customs inventory certification where the function is administrative, not adjudicatory.

A Magistrate's role under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 in certifying the correctness of inventory, permitting photographs and allowing representative samples to be drawn is administrative or executive in nature, because it does not require appreciation of evidence or determine any person's liability to punishment, penalty, detention or trial. The Delhi High Court agreed that this function should therefore be performed by an Executive Magistrate under Section 3(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not by a Judicial Magistrate. Earlier orders relied on by the petitioner were treated as non-binding, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the functions performed by a Magistrate under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 for certifying the correctness of inventory, photographs and samples of seized goods are executive functions exercisable by an Executive Magistrate and not by a Judicial Magistrate.

Analysis: Section 110(1B) requires the Magistrate to certify the correctness of the inventory, permit photographs and allow representative samples to be drawn in the presence of the Magistrate. Reading this provision with Section 3(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the function does not involve appreciation or sifting of evidence, nor does it expose any person to punishment, penalty, detention, or trial. The function is therefore administrative or executive in character. The Court agreed with the view that such work should be performed by an Executive Magistrate. The earlier orders relied upon by the petitioner were held not to be binding precedents on this point, as the issue had not been examined in them.

Conclusion: The function under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 is an executive function to be performed by an Executive Magistrate, not by a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was not entitled to the directions sought.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and was dismissed, with liberty to approach the competent Collector for performance of the functions contemplated by Section 110(1B).

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory function of a Magistrate under another law is administrative or executive in nature and does not involve adjudication of evidence or exposure to penal consequences, it is to be discharged by an Executive Magistrate under Section 3(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---