Customs confiscation prevails over criminal custody when goods vest in the Government and must go to customs authority.

Confiscated goods under the Customs Act, 1962 vest in the Central Government, and the adjudging customs officer becomes the proper authority to take and retain possession. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not override this special statutory scheme, because orders under Sections 451 and 452 are only temporary measures for preserving property pending trial. Section 5 preserves the operation of the special law, so a Magistrate cannot continue custody of articles already confiscated under customs adjudication or refuse delivery to the customs authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after confiscation of the seized articles under the Customs Act, 1962, the Magistrate could retain custody of those articles under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 instead of directing their delivery to the Customs authority.

Analysis: The seized goods were first taken into customs custody and later confiscated in adjudication under the Customs Act, 1962. Upon confiscation, the goods vested in the Central Government, and the officer adjudging confiscation became the proper authority to take and hold possession of them. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could not override the special scheme of the Customs Act, 1962, which operates independently of the criminal trial. Orders under Sections 451 and 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are only temporary and meant to preserve property pending trial, whereas Section 5 preserves the operation of special laws. The Magistrate therefore lacked jurisdiction to refuse delivery of the confiscated articles to the Customs authority.

Conclusion: The refusal to hand over the confiscated articles to the Customs authority was illegal and without jurisdiction, and the seized articles were required to be delivered to the petitioner.

---