TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (3) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the petitioners. 2.Petitioner No. 7 is the owner of the seized trawler `M.V. Mina'. On 18-1-1992 at about 6 p.m. the Patrol party of Shamser Nagar B.O.P. in course of their patrolling duty in the Jammu Deep area intercepted the disputed fishing trawler `M.V. Mina' which was proceeding towards Jammu Deep from the near Khal, namely, Narayan Tala. On suspicion the Patrol party apprehended six Bangladeshi nationals along with the trawler and other goods and forwarded the same to the Customs Officer at Hasnabad on 24-12-1992. The Customs Officer arrested those occupants and seized the fishing trawler including a portion of the fishing net and other articles like oil drum, water drum and wrist watch etc. The petitioners were produced before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e launching of the criminal proceeding and as such the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has rightly refused to entertain the petition for return of the seized trawler at this stage before launching of the prosecution. 4.The contention raised on behalf of the O.P. No. 1 appears to have force. In Assistant Collector of Customs v. Tilak Raj Shibdoyal, AIR 1969 Delhi 301, the contention on behalf of the petitioner was that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order the return of the car on superdari to the respondent under the provision of Section 523 (new Section 457), Criminal Procedure Code. The argument was that the Customs Officers were not Police Officers within the meaning of that Section and the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain law and order. The powers of customs officers are really not for such purpose. [Then] powers are for the purpose of checking the smuggling of goods and the due realization of customs duties and to determine the action to be taken in the interest of the re- venues of the country by way of confiscation of goods on which [no] duty had been paid and by imposing penalties and fines. (Vide State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276 at p. 278). It was held by their Lordships that a customs officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act. 6.In Badaku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, (supra) the question was whether the central excise officer under the Central Excises and Salt Act was a police officer within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h respect to the goods seized by the Customs Officers and liable to be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act at least before the launching of the criminal proceedings. The impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Division Judicial Magistrate by which he refused to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner No. 7 for return of the seized trawler before launching of the procecution does not, therefore, ........ from any illegality. 9.The petitioners have, however, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for return of the seized trawler for ends of justice. It appears that no smuggled goods were seized from the disputed fishing trawler. The Petitioner No. 7 has produced the xerox c....