TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1A of I.P.C.) 2. The officer of the Aizawl Customs Division seized on 29-11-2001 five pieces of A.K. rifles, 2 pieces 9 mm pistols and 22 numbers of live ammunitions concealed in three white nylon bags and wrapped with woolen cloth of foreign origin from a godown located at Zion Street, Aizawl. A second party of customs officers, acting on information, could intercept Mizoram State transport bus at Keifang and apprehended respondent No. 1, who later on identified the bags as his own property and the customs officers recovered Indian currency amounting to Rs. 5880/- (Five thousands eight hundred eighty) and an identity card was also seized from him. Respondent No. 1 having no documents to support possession of these smuggled goods was boo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, alongwith other articles, seized by the customs Officers, vide Order and Memo No. CCP/NER/246/2002, dated 3-10-2002. Thereafter a petition was addressed to ADM, Aizawl with prayer to release of the arms and ammunitions and return them to customs department as on confiscation these have been vested in the Union of India on the strength of Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962. But learned Court of ADM, Aizawl, rejected the prayer on the plea that he had power to retain the property on the strength of Sections 451/452 of Cr.P.C. till conclusion of Criminal trial further opining that such release will affect the trial adversely. Hence this revision petition by Union of India. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confiscation passed under authority of Customs Act. That it is erroneous also on the part of the respective Magistrates to pass orders allowing Government Officers to keep custody to the fire arms or keeping the same in custody of 1st Bn. MAP etc. 9. That the Courts below had made the entire process of law farcical by allowing bail of Rs. 3000/- to the accused who was a foreigner and naturally the accused absconded. The bail bond was discharged by accepting only a petty sum of Rs. 1200/- from surety and thus there will be no probability of apprehending the accused now, who is a citizen of Myanmar, to put him to trial etc. etc. 10. Be that as it may, the petition is directed against propriety/legality of impugned order dated 2-12-2002 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e trial in a Criminal Court was meant for 'infliction of punishment'." We may look into the provision of Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962 in this context. It goes as follows :-- "126. On confiscation, property to vest in Central Government.-- (1) When any goods are confiscated under this Act such goods shall thereupon vest in the Central Government. (2) The officer adjudging confiscation shall take and hold possession of the confiscated goods." Therefore, it has been rightly submitted by the learned lawyer of the petitioner that on confiscation the goods that were seized by the customs have been vested in the Central Government and the officer adjudging confiscation is the rightful authority to take and h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only to preserve the property pending trial : 1985 Cri LJ 951 (Ker). There was specific statement from the side of the petitioner that he will undertake to produce the seized articles as and when required by the Court. This was sufficient guarantee to hand over the articles to the custom department. This would also be appropriate as in the present case because the accused has not come up with any plea of legal ownership of the property seized. It cannot be disputed that articles which come under the domain of smuggled goods are within the authority of the customs department who deals with the same as per Customs Act which is a special Act and Section 5 of Cr. P.C. provides that provisions in Cr. P.C. will not come in clash with any special ....