TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e v. State. Petition dismissed. - W.P. (Crl.) No. 556 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2014 - Pratibha Rani, J. Shri Satish Agarwala, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri V.S. Negi, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The petitioner is challenging the order dated 1-8-2013 passed by Learned MM in CC No. 16/1/13 titled as Customs v. M/s. Siddhant Enterprises and Anr. dismissing its application filed under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act and prayed that the order dated 1-8-2013 passed by Learned MM may be set aside or in the alternative, the matter may be referred to a Division Bench, as the two coordinate Benches of equal strength have taken different views on the same issue. 2. I have heard Learned Counsel for the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 78 (Del.)]. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the view taken by Learned Single Judge in Crl. M.C. No. 526/2013 titled as Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. State is contrary to the view taken by Learned Single Judge in Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 2484/1998 titled as Department of Customs v. Parvinder Kaur decided on 24-8-2000 on the same issue. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Learned Single Judge while giving decision in Crl. M.C. No. 526/2013 titled as Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. State, instead of following the earlier decision of this Court in Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 2484/1998 titled as Department of Customs v. Parvinder Kaur, preferred to follow the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of Gujarat High Court in Assistant Collector of Customs v. Surendra Praggar Gosain and Anr. - (1988) 1 GLR 421. 7. The contentions are being noted for rejection only. Here it is necessary to record that Learned Single Judge in its decision in Crl. M.C. No. 526/2013 titled as Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. State has noted the contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner (in Crl. M.C. No. 526/2013 petitioner/DRI was represented by Mr. Satish Agarwala, Advocate, who is representing Petition in this case also) and has dealt with the same in para 4 and 5 of the decisions as under :- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Department of Customs v. Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Cr. P.C. the functions must be performed by an Executive Magistrate and not by a Judicial Magistrate. Since the aspect of function of the Magistrate as appearing under Section 110(1B) under reference to the provision of Section 3(4) Cr. P.C. was not examined in the orders relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, they cannot be said to be binding precedents. Rather, the same are per incuriam. 9. In the given facts, since the Learned MM has passed the impugned order dated 1-8-2013 following the decision of this Court in Crl. M.C. No. 526/2013 titled as Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. State in which the decision of Learned Single Judge in Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 2484/1998 titled as Department of Customs v. Parvin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
