Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot be used to secure interim release of excisable goods held by the department pending adjudication.

A petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking interim release of excisable goods was held not maintainable where no criminal case was pending and the goods remained in the custody of the excise department. The Court noted that adjudication and possible confiscation lay within the statutory powers of the departmental authorities, not the criminal court. As the property was not in the Court's custody, inherent criminal jurisdiction could not be used to order return of the seized goods. The petitioner was left to seek relief before the competent excise forum or authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable to secure release of excisable goods seized by the Central Excise Department pending adjudication.

Analysis: The goods had been seized by the Central Excise authorities in the course of proceedings under the excise law, and no criminal case was pending before the Court. The power to adjudicate, and if necessary to confiscate, vested in the departmental authorities under the statutory scheme. The property was not in the custody of the Court, but remained with the department. In those circumstances, the inherent criminal jurisdiction of the Court could not be invoked to direct interim return of the seized goods. The proper course for the petitioner was to pursue relief before the competent forum or the excise authorities.

Conclusion: The petition for return of the seized goods was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---