TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after confiscation of seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962, the criminal court could retain custody of the articles under the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of directing their handover to the customs authorities.
Analysis: The seized arms and ammunition had been taken by customs officers and later confiscated by the competent customs authority. On confiscation, the goods vested in the Central Government and the adjudicating officer became the lawful authority to take and hold possession of them. The Code of Criminal Procedure could not override this special statutory scheme, because its general provisions yield to a special law in force. An order under the custody provisions of the criminal procedure law is only temporary and meant to preserve property pending trial, not to defeat confiscation already made under the Customs Act.
Conclusion: The criminal court had no jurisdiction to retain the confiscated goods, and the seized articles had to be handed over to the customs department.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order refusing release of the confiscated goods was set aside and the customs authority was directed to receive immediate custody of the seized articles.
Ratio Decidendi: Once goods are confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962, they vest in the Central Government and are to be held by the customs authority, and the general custody powers of the criminal court cannot override that special statutory consequence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
