TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the objection of the customs department ordered the return of the seized truck on the petitioner's furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The customs department objected to the return of the truck on the ground that the learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to pass the order of return of the truck seized by the customs department as no complaint has yet been filed by the customs and no cognizance of the case had yet been taken by the learned Magistrate. Overruling the said objection of the customs, the order for return of the seized truck in question was passed by the learned Magistrate on the petitioners furnishing bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereafter on the prayer of the customs department, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rested any person under sub-section (1) he shall, for the purpose of releasing such person on bail or otherwise, have the same powers and be subject to the same provisions as the Officer-in-charge of a police station has and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898." 5. I have carefully considered the two unreported decisions referred to by Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioners. The Division Bench judgment of Criminal Revision No. 547 of 1974 is one of those decisions and the other is Single Bench judgment of Criminal Revision No. 1648 of 1980. But in none of these two decisions, there is a clear finding that the Magistrate had the necessary jurisdiction before a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs. Therefore, for the purpose of search and seizure by Customs Officers under the Customs Act, the Customs Officer does not function as a Police Officer. That the Customs Officer is not a Police Officer has been clearly declared by the Supreme Court in several decisions. Reference may be had to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 S.C. 276 and Illias v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1970 S.C. 1065. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate cannot be invoked either under Section 451 or under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for dealing with the articles seized by the Customs Officer in connection with a customs raid conducted by him under the provisions of the Customs Act b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 115 of the Customs Act, but the registered owner of the truck concerned has also the right under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Act to claim that in lieu of confiscation a fine not exceeding the market price of the goods sought to be smuggled or the smuggled goods, as the case may be, may be imposed upon the registered owner. In view of the above, and in view of the statements of the registered owner that the truck is her only source of livelihood, I direct that the seized truck WGA 3993 be released to the Petitioner No. 2 on her furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. If not already furnished, and also on furnishing a Bank Guarantee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
