Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.04 seconds)Superintendent Of Customs vs Ummerkutty And Ors. on 5 October, 1983
in Superintendent of Customs v. Ummerkutty and Ors., 1984 K.L.T. 1 held that Section 437 of the Code is the respository of magisterial power to grant bail in such cases and power of granting bail necessarily implies that the magistrate can refuse to release such person on bail and remand him to custody.
Section 124 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal vs S. N. Basak on 12 April, 1962
This observation has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, AIR 1963 S.C. 447. Of course in regard to disposal of property in accordance with Section 457 of the Code, Criminal Court may have jurisdiction even at an antecedent stage, subject to the provisions contained therein. The magistrate who dismissed the petitions seeking issue of direction to the Customs Authorities was justified in doing so since he has no power to issue such direction. In such a case it is not for the High Court in exercise of inherent power to issue a direction of the nature sought, particularly when the direction sought is not to a Criminal Court but to a Customs Officer functioning under the provisions of the Act. Customs Officer is not a Criminal Court by any stretch of imagination.