Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The petitioner, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, assails vide these two petitions a common order dated 31.8.2016 of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide which a Mercedes car bearing No. DL-1CQ-7525 containing 8 Kg. of gold which was seized from it on 8.12.2015 qua which one Mr. Sunny Kakkar and one Ahadees K were arrested, for carrying smuggled gold registered in the name of M/s PRK Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. of which Mr.Sunny Kakkar was its director, permitted the release of the said Mercedes car on superdari and vide the said order also permitted the release of a Honda City car bearing No. DL-4CAH 8319 which was alleged to have been utilized for carrying smuggled gold on superdari to Sh. Inder Prakash Kohli @ Baboo who had been arrested along with Mr.Vinod Khanna and Mr.Hari Sharan Khanna on 20.6.2014 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 132/135 of the Customs Act, 1962 in connection with the recovery of gold bars weighing 5 Kgs valued at 1,24,22,475/- as per the tariff value as per the customs notification No. 46/14/NT/96/2014 with market value at Rs. 13,65,5000/- seized vide panchnama dated 29.6.2014. Both the vehicles referred to herein above were allowed to be released on superdari holding that in view of the verdict of this Court in the case of Manjeet Singh v. State, in Crl.M.C. No. 4485/2013 and Crl. M.A. No. 16055/2013, the vehicle seized during the investigation including those seized under the provisions of the Customs Act ought to be released to the registered owner of the vehicle on the undertaking that in the event of confiscation of the vehicle in adjudication proceedings, the registered owner would furnish a bond to the value of the vehicle to the department or as ordered by the department and it was observed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to the effect that the vehicles if not released, would deteriorate with time and if not released the upkeep thereof would drain the resources and the space and that the presumption of inconvenience has to be given due weightage and the accused ought not to be penalized indirectly.

19. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on the order dated 9.8.1999 of this Court in Crl. M(M) No. 1774/99 whereby the order of the learned ACMM dated 5.6.1999 permitting the release of a truck seized by the customs authorities was not set aside. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on the order dated 13.7.2000 of this Court in Crl. M.(M) No. 564/2000 in which a truck was allowed to be released on superdari in which case the respondents arrayed therein in the case titled Jagdish Chander Sharma V. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence; Crl.M(M) No. 1564/2000, was the Intelligence Officer of the Directorate of the Revenue Intelligence and the order dated 13.7.2000 indicates that the truck had been directed to be maintained including the cavities from which the contraband articles were recovered by the petitioner who sought the release of the vehicle on superdari in the same condition as it was on 13.7.2000. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on the order dated 22.4.1999 of this Court in Crl.M(M) 688/98 in the case Enforcement V. Braham Choudhary: Crl.M(M) No. 680/1998 in which a Maruti car was allowed to be released on superdari though it had been contended that the car had been purchased from foreign currency illegally brought by the brother of the respondent and it was observed that there was no reason to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 451 of the CPC.

20. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on the verdict of this Court in Smt. Narender Kaur v. Arun Sheoran (supra), which had also been relied upon on behalf of the petitioner contending to the effect that in that case, the vehicle was not released during the pendency of the case in as much as it was not certain that the vehicle belonged to the petitioner. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on the verdict of this Court in Madan Lal v State, National Capital: 2002 IV AD (Delhi) 177 which was a case in which 400 gms smack was recovered from inside the cabin of the seat of the driver of a Tempo and in terms of Section 63 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the said vehicle was liable to confiscation and it was thus held that in terms of Section 60(3) and Section 63 of the NDPS Act, 1985, neither Section 60(3) nor Section 63 of the NDPS Act, 1985 empowered the Trial Court to make an order for proper custody of a conveyance during the pendency of trial but that by virtue of Section 51, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been made applicable in order that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Customs Act and thus it was observed that the petitioner therein being the undisputed registered owner of the vehicle, the vehicle was nevertheless not allowed to be released on superdari to the petitioner in as much as it was held that the trial was to conclude in the near future and that if the tempo was not released, it would get further damaged because of its disuse and for proper custody during pending the trial and the order was needed to be made and the order of the Trial Court whereby no reasons were given for declining the release of the vehicle was set aside and the vehicle was allowed to be released to be produced on superdari on conditions with it having been directed to be produced before the learned Trial Court as and when required.

iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs.13,70,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) each upon Anju Kumar and Hari Sharan Khanna under Section 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962."

54. Thus, it is apparent that despite the non-existence of a specific bar to the jurisdiction of Courts in the Customs Act, 1962 to release of the seized goods during investigation by the Customs Authority, the Trial Court could not have invoked the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 for release of the vehicles in question on superdari in as much as the seizure of the two vehicles in question was not subject matter of any ' inquiry' or 'trial' before the learned CMM at the time of consideration of the prayer for release of the vehicles on superdari. The impugned orders of the learned Trial Court are thus set aside. The petition Nos. Crl.M.C. Nos. 4316/2016 and 4767/2016 are thus allowed.