Customs seizure and release: Magistrate lacked jurisdiction, while High Court granted conditional release on bond and guarantee.

Before a customs complaint is filed, a Magistrate cannot invoke criminal procedure custody powers to order release of goods or a truck seized by customs officers under the Customs Act, because such seizure is reported to the Collector of Customs and not to the Magistrate. The High Court may nevertheless intervene under its inherent and supervisory jurisdiction where justice requires, including when confiscation proceedings may still follow and the owner has a statutory right of redemption in lieu of confiscation. Applying those considerations, the Court directed conditional release of the seized truck to the registered owner on bond and bank guarantee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate could direct release of goods or a truck seized by customs officers before filing of a complaint under the Customs Act. (ii) Whether the High Court could order release of the seized truck in exercise of its inherent or supervisory jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate could direct release of goods or a truck seized by customs officers before filing of a complaint under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The customs officers seized the truck and goods in exercise of powers of search and seizure under the Customs Act. The judgment held that the customs officer, while acting under the customs law, is not a police officer for this purpose and that the seizure is to be reported to the Collector of Customs, not to the Magistrate. In that setting, the Magistrate's powers under the criminal procedure provisions governing custody or release of seized property could not be invoked before commencement of proceedings by complaint under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order release of the seized truck before filing of a complaint under the Customs Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could order release of the seized truck in exercise of its inherent or supervisory jurisdiction.

Analysis: The judgment recognised that the High Court could intervene under its inherent powers and supervisory jurisdiction where justice so required. It also noted that confiscation proceedings could still be initiated by customs and that the registered owner had a statutory right to seek redemption in lieu of confiscation. Considering the owner's status, the hardship caused by continued seizure, and the condition of the vehicle, the Court found it appropriate to secure release on terms.

Conclusion: The seized truck was directed to be released to the registered owner on furnishing bond and bank guarantee.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded only to the extent that the customs seizure could not be dealt with by the Magistrate, but relief was granted by directing conditional release of the truck to the registered owner.

Ratio Decidendi: Before a customs complaint is filed, a Magistrate cannot assume jurisdiction to order release of property seized by customs officers under the Customs Act, but the High Court may grant conditional release in exercise of its inherent or supervisory powers where justice requires.

---