2017 (5) TMI 1282 - HC - Customs

Appeal Dismissed Due to Criminal Law Jurisdiction

The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The court determined that the jurisdiction exercised by the Single ... Maintainability of appeal - whether no appeal can be maintained under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction? - release of the vehicle carrying smuggled gold - Held that: - the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge was made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. In fact, the appellant himself invoked the criminal law proceedings and the entire matter was looked into from the criminal law perspective. The present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable. Issues:1. Maintainability of the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent.Analysis:The appeal in question was filed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in a criminal matter. The respondent argued that no appeal could be maintained under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against such an order. The appellant, however, contended that as the order was passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in civil jurisdiction, the objection to the maintainability of the appeal was not valid. The appellant relied on a Division Bench decision to support the argument that the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable in this case.The material on record revealed that the appellant's vehicle, suspected of carrying smuggled gold, was seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had ordered the release of the vehicle, which was challenged by the DRI through a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Single Judge stayed the Magistrate's order, leading to the appellant filing the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.In a similar case, the Division Bench had ruled that a writ petition identified as a 'Criminal Writ' did not necessarily fall under criminal jurisdiction. The appellant in the present case argued that the seizure of the vehicle did not constitute criminal proceedings, and therefore, the Single Judge's order was not passed in criminal jurisdiction.However, a Full Bench decision in another case held that the nature of the proceedings, whether civil or criminal, depended on the nature of the right violated and the relief sought. It was established that the present appeal was made in the context of criminal law proceedings, and the Single Judge's order was viewed from a criminal law perspective. The Full Bench concluded that the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was not maintainable, as the jurisdiction exercised by the Single Judge was deemed to be in criminal jurisdiction.Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of lack of maintainability under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.