Court rules CMM lacked jurisdiction to release seized vehicles under Customs Act. Distinction between criminal prosecution and confiscation.

The High Court held that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) lacked jurisdiction to release vehicles seized under the Customs Act on any condition. It was determined that Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. did not apply to such seizures, as the Customs Act provided a comprehensive framework for confiscation and release of goods. The court emphasized the distinction between criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, affirming that acquittal in a criminal trial does not impact confiscation orders. The impugned orders of the CMM were set aside, directing parties to address confiscation orders through proper legal channels.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) to release seized vehicles on superdari under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. to vehicles seized under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation and provisional release of seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Distinction between criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the CMM to Release Seized Vehicles on Superdari:

The petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), contended that the CMM had no jurisdiction to release the vehicles seized under the Customs Act on any condition. The petitioner argued that the vehicles were liable for confiscation under Section 110 of the Customs Act, and the ownership of the vehicles would vest with the Central Government upon confiscation. The petitioner further contended that the CMM could not release the vehicles under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. as the Customs Act, being a Special Act, overrides the general provisions of the Cr.P.C.

2. Applicability of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. to Vehicles Seized Under the Customs Act:

The petitioner argued that Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. does not apply to vehicles seized under the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Act provides a complete code for the search, seizure, confiscation, and release of goods. The petitioner relied on several judgments, including Assistant Collector of Customs v. Tilak Raj Shiv Dayal, which held that a Customs Officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 523 of the Cr.P.C. (precursor to Section 451) and that the provision of Section 451 does not apply to properties seized by Customs Officers before criminal proceedings are launched.

3. Confiscation and Provisional Release of Seized Goods Under the Customs Act:

The Customs Act, 1962, provides for the seizure and confiscation of improperly imported goods. Section 110(1A) allows for the provisional release of seized goods pending adjudication. Section 115(2) provides for the confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance. Section 125 allows the officer adjudging confiscation to impose a fine in lieu of confiscation. The Act also provides for appeals against orders of confiscation and penalties.

4. Distinction Between Criminal Prosecution and Confiscation Proceedings:

The judgment emphasized that criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act are distinct and parallel proceedings. The mere fact of an acquittal in a criminal trial does not nullify an order of confiscation. The Customs Act provides a complete code for dealing with seized goods, including adjudication and appeals.

Conclusion:

The High Court set aside the impugned orders of the CMM, holding that the provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. do not apply to the release of vehicles seized under the Customs Act during the stage of investigation. The respondents were advised to seek redressal in accordance with the law against the orders of confiscation passed by the Customs authorities. The petitions were allowed, and the accompanying applications were disposed of accordingly.

---