H S LASKARI SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS JUNAGADH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed by the Superintendent of Customs Junagadh against the order dated 5-6-1987 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Junagadh which is annexed to the application as Annexure-C. In the said order a sum of Rs. 2 100 was ordered to be paid to Shri J. A. Dholakia and Shri L. N. Gajra Judicial Magistrate First-Class Junagadh each by way of remuneration for the work done by them under Sec. 110(1B) of the Customs Act and Customs and Central Excise Department Junagadh was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 200 in She Court within 15 days from the date of the said order.

(2.) In view of the fact that the order was passed in favour of the learned Judicial Magistrates First Class Shri J. A. Dholakia and Shri J. N. Gajra they were ordered to be joined as party-respondents and accordingly they were joined as respondents Nos. 2 & 3. They have not filed any appertains and they have stated that they will submit to the orders of this Court. In the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has pointed out that the said Magistrates have worked in all for six days totalling to 38 hours and 30 minutes they have spent 12 hours for preparing the inventory report and list of sample and worked more than 50 hours and there were contraband articles worth Rs. 1 70 0 0 It is also pointed out in the said order that this work of making inventory does not fall within the scope of the duty of the judicial officers and that they have worked after office hours and as far as possible during holidays and therefore remuneration should be paid to them. Therefore in his opinion it would be proper to award Rs. 300.00 per day to each Magistrate as each of them has worked for seven days.

(3.) Legality of the said order is challenged in this application by Mr. S. D. Shah the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Customs Department. He submits that Sec. 110 of the Customs Act is amended in the year 1986 and new sub-secs. (1A) and (1B) have been introduced and under the newly introduced sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 110(1B) the proper officer is required to prepare the inventory of the goods and is also required to make an application to the Magistrate for certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared or taking in the presence of the Magistrate photographs of such goods and certifying such photographs as true or for allowing to draw representative sample of such goods in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. According to Mr. Shah the newly introduced sub-secs. (1A) and (1B) of Sec. 110 of the Act clearly imposes the duty on the Magistrate and that no provision is made for giving additional remuneration to the Magistrate in the whole of the Customs Act and in that view of the matter the impugned order is patently contrary to law.