TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court cancels bail in customs offence case involving smuggled goods worth over one crore rupees</h1> <h3>SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS Versus UMMERKUTTY AND OTHERS</h3> SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS Versus UMMERKUTTY AND OTHERS - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 384 (Ker.) Issues Involved:1. Power of Magistrate to remand under Section 104 of the Customs Act.2. Application of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the 'Code') to customs offences.3. Validity of the bail granted by the Magistrate.Summary:Issue 1: Power of Magistrate to remand under Section 104 of the Customs ActThe petitioners were granted conditional bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry, which was contested by the Superintendent of Customs under Section 439(2) of the Code seeking cancellation of the interim and regular bail. The Magistrate's view was based on a decision from the Delhi High Court in Dalam Chand Baid v. Union of India, which held that a Magistrate lacks the power to remand individuals accused under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, analogous to Section 104 of the Customs Act.Issue 2: Application of Section 437 of the Code to customs offencesThe Court highlighted that Section 104 of the Customs Act does not explicitly state the Magistrate's actions when a person is produced before him. However, by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Code, the provisions of the Code, including Section 437, apply to offences under the Customs Act. This implies that the Magistrate has the power to grant or refuse bail and, consequently, the power to remand individuals to custody.Issue 3: Validity of the bail granted by the MagistrateThe Court found that the learned Magistrate's approach in granting bail was untenable and ignored the realities of the case, which involved smuggled goods worth over one crore rupees. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the offence and the potential for released individuals to obstruct the investigation. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Nainmal Punjaji Shah, the Court noted the necessity of considering the larger interest of the State in such cases.The Court concluded that the orders of bail passed by the Magistrate were perverse and contrary to established norms. The bail granted to the respondents was cancelled, and it was directed that they be arrested and committed to custody. The petitioner was instructed to move the Magistrate for extension of remand as necessary.Conclusion:The Crl. M.C. was allowed, and the bail orders were set aside, directing the respondents' arrest and remand in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 