Criminal court custody over perishable seized goods may be regulated with safeguards to preserve customs and trial interests.

Seized perishable goods may be released and disposed of by the criminal court when they form case property in a pending prosecution, because the court's incidental powers can regulate custody even if customs confiscation proceedings are also pending. Physical production of the goods in court is not indispensable where the property is otherwise identified and can be proved by other means. Any release or disposal order must, however, protect the customs department's interest by imposing safeguards such as an indemnity bond, an undertaking to pay if confiscation is later upheld, and retention of representative material for trial purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal court could direct release and disposal of seized perishable goods under its powers, and if so, what conditions were required to protect the customs department's interest.

Analysis: The seized cartons of toothpaste were treated as case property and a perishable commodity whose value would diminish with time. The existence of customs confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act did not oust the criminal court's jurisdiction after a criminal complaint had been filed and the property was required for trial. The court held that physical production in the courtroom was not indispensable where the property was otherwise identified and could be exhibited by appropriate means. At the same time, the customs interest had to be safeguarded because the goods were alleged to have been used for concealment of smuggled articles and were liable to confiscation subject to adjudication. The release order was therefore sustainable only with protective conditions, including an indemnity bond, an undertaking to pay the amount if confiscation was ultimately upheld, and retention of one carton by the department for trial purposes.

Conclusion: The court upheld the power of the magistrate to order release of the perishable goods, but modified the order by adding safeguards in favour of the customs department.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized property is perishable and is needed as case property in a pending criminal case, the criminal court may regulate its custody and disposal under its incidental powers, provided adequate conditions are imposed to secure the public revenue and preserve evidence.

---