T.P.Mukherji, J. - (1.) These two matters were heard together as the same question of law is involved in both of them. In the case out of which arises Criminal Revision Case No. 987 of 1965 certain categories of goods including mostly ball bearing and steel files of foreign origin, which were believed to be smuggled property, were seized by the police from the custody of opposite party No. 1. In the case out of which Criminal Revision Case No. 988 of 1965 has arisen the police seized a lorry loaded with bundles of cinnamon and cloves of foreign origin from the custody of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The opposite party No. 1 was the driver of the lorry and opposite party No. 5 in that case was the owner thereof. The seizure in both the cases were made by the police under Sections 54 Cr. P. C./411 I. P. C. While the case was pending for investigation by the police the Customs authorities made an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate praying for a direction on the Invetigating Officers concerned to hand over the seized goods to them at the conclusion of the investigation or trial to facilitate proceedings under the Customs law against the offenders concerned. This petition was ordered to be put up at the conclusion of the police investigation.
(2.) The police ultimately submitted final reports in both the cases and the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate then heard parties on the prayer of the Customs Authorities that the goods seized may be handed over to them. The learned Magistrate came to the finding that it would not be proper for the Court to pass any order in favour of the Customs Authorities as prayed for and the proper order would be to return the goods to the accused and the Customs Authorities may, if necessary, thereafter make their own independent seizure obviously from the person who takes delivery of the goods, without further reference to the Court. It is the propriety of the order passed in both the cases to the above effect which is the subject matter of the present Rules.
(3.) Mr. Banerjee, appearing in support of the Rules, draws my attention to the provisions of Section 180 of the old Sea Customs Act whereunder the police was under a statutory obligation to inform the nearest Customs House about the seizure of contraband goods and also to convey the same and deposit It at the nearest Customs House after the dismissal of the complaint or the conclusion of the enquiry or trial arising out of that seizure. It is argued that the Customs Act of 1862 contains no provision analogous to the above provision in the old Sea Customs Act and that the new provision made in Sections 110 and 151 of the Customs Act fall short of the situation that prevailed under the old Sea Customs Act. Under the new Act according to Mr. Banerjee, an order of the Court under Section 516A or 517 or 523 in favour of the Customs Authorities is required to be passed for the purpose of giving effect to the provision of the Customs Act.;