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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate's directions under Section 133(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be sustained without the mandatory inquiry and hearing contemplated by the Code, and whether the matter required remand for fresh determination.
Analysis: Section 133 and the connected provisions contemplate a conditional order founded on police information or other material, followed by an inquiry in which the affected person is heard and evidence may be taken. The record showed that the directions were issued without the requisite inquiry and without affording an effective opportunity to the Customs Department, though the ICD was a customs bonded area and the storage and movement of containers were governed by statutory and regulatory controls. The Court also noted that questions relating to hazardous cargo, the disaster management framework, and the feasibility of removal or regulation of containers required a fuller factual examination, including the possibility of local investigation and expert evidence.
Conclusion: The impugned orders could not be allowed to stand as final directions on nuisance removal. The matter was remitted to the Magistrate for a proper inquiry, hearing of the concerned parties, and further steps as warranted by law.