2022 (2) TMI 839 - HC - Customs

Magistrate's Jurisdiction Over Seized Trucks Limited by Customs Act; Emphasizes Adherence to Statutory Provisions

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit, Shillong Versus Shri Ajay Babu Manda And Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Shillong Regional Unit, Shillong Versus Shri Guttikonda Sridhar

The Court held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction in releasing seized trucks under the Customs Act, as it has specific provisions overriding the ... Smuggling - foreign origin black pepper - jurisdictional infirmity - whether the learned Magistrate have correctly assumed proper jurisdiction while passing the original impugned order under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. or the same have been passed without jurisdiction? - HELD THAT:- The provision of Section 451 Cr.P.C. empowers a Criminal Court to order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases and when such property was produced before the said Court, an appropriate order may be passed for the custody of such property. Coming to the Customs Act, 1962 what is seen is that there are specific provisions for searches, seizure and arrest under chapter XIII of the Act which empowers the proper officer to resort to the provisions of Sections 100 through Section 110-A for the same. However, for the limited purpose of this matter, the relevant provision would be Section 110 which speaks of seizure of goods, documents and things and Section 110-A which provides for release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication - In a proceeding under the Customs Act, it is but natural to expect that the provisions of the said Act would be applicable to enable the concerned party to resort to for specific directions or relief as the case may be. When in Section 110-A it has been specifically laid down that the proper officer is empowered to release the seized goods to the owner on taking a bond from him, then there is no necessity to approach the Magistrate to employ Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of release of such goods. It may be mentioned that the Customs Act, 1962 is a special Act while the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the general law. It is also well settled that the provisions of the Special Act will override the provisions of the general law as in the case in hand. The principles of the latin maxim of “generalia specialibus non derogant”, i.e., general law yields to special law should they operate in the same field on same subject will be applicable here. This Court finds that the learned Magistrate has acted without jurisdiction while passing the impugned order dated 20.07.2021 and thus, an abuse of the process of the court has been occasioned. The same is hereby set aside and quashed - Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge upholding the release of seized trucks by the Judicial Magistrate under the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate:- The petitioner argued that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction in releasing the trucks under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. as there is a specific provision for release under Section 110 A of the Customs Act.- The Customs Act, being a special Act, provides for seizure and release of goods under Sections 110 and 110A, which overrides the general law of Cr.P.C.- The petitioner contended that the Magistrate's assumption of jurisdiction was incorrect, citing the case law of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. PRK Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.2. Submission to Magistrate's Jurisdiction:- The respondents' counsel admitted that the Customs Act does not mandate the production of seized materials before the Magistrate for custody permission.- However, the respondents argued that by filing a preliminary complaint and seeking custody of seized goods, the Customs Officials had effectively submitted to the Magistrate's jurisdiction.3. Stage of Proceedings:- The petitioner emphasized that at the time of the Magistrate's order, the case was still under investigation, and prosecution had not commenced.- Without the necessary prosecution sanction from the Principal Commissioner, the Magistrate could not have passed the impugned order under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C.4. Decision and Order:- The Court found that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing the order and set it aside, concluding it as an abuse of the court's process.- Consequently, the Sessions Judge's order upholding the Magistrate's decision was also deemed unsustainable.- The Court directed the respondents to approach the proper officer under Section 110-A of the Customs Act for the release of the seized vehicles promptly due to their prolonged custody.5. Conclusion:- The petitions were disposed of with no costs, emphasizing the need for adherence to the specific provisions of the Customs Act for seizure and release procedures, highlighting the supremacy of special laws over general laws in relevant matters.