Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The High Court examined the legality of a seizure order due to unauthorized search and seizure of goods based on suspicion of storing stolen/smuggled areca nuts. The Bureau of Investigation (Economic Offence) lacked authority for such actions as the Customs Act empowers specific customs officers for search and seizure of smuggled goods, not the BI (EO). Jurisdictional facts must exist for an authority to act, and in this case, the BI (EO) wrongly assumed such facts, leading to the search and seizure being set aside. The petitioner may seek redressal for any grievances, and the bank guarantee provided should be released. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.