Inventory certification under Customs law is an executive function, so a Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction.

Certification of the correctness of an inventory of seized goods under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act is an executive function, so it must be performed by an Executive Magistrate rather than a Judicial Magistrate. The court further held that earlier orders relied on by the petitioner did not consider this point and could not displace the later view treating them as per incuriam. On that basis, the application was not maintainable before the Judicial Magistrate and no interference with the dismissal was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for certification of the inventory under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 was maintainable before a Judicial Magistrate, and whether the impugned order dismissing the application called for interference.

Analysis: The controlling view applied by the Court was that certification of the correctness of the inventory of seized goods under Section 110(1B) is an executive function. In terms of Section 3(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such a function is to be performed by an Executive Magistrate and not by a Judicial Magistrate. The Court also accepted that the earlier orders relied upon by the petitioner did not examine this aspect and therefore could not displace the later view treating them as per incuriam. As the Magistrate had followed that later binding position, no interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The application under Section 110(1B) was not maintainable before the Judicial Magistrate, and the dismissal of the petitioner's challenge was upheld.

---