Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 172 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 179 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 168 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
S.K. Srivastava vs Gajanand Patriwalla on 6 March, 1956
7. Mr. Ajit Kumar Dutta appearing for the petitioner in Cr. Revision 392 of 1963 has contended that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has erred in law in thinking that the mere fact that an adjudication proceeding under Section 182 of the Sea Customs Act has been started deprives the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of his power to make order for disposal of the property seized by search warrant issued by that Court. Mr. Dutta relied as an authority on the decision of this Court reported in S. K. Srivastava v. Gajanand Patriwalla, and also on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mohammad Serajuddin v. R. C. Misra, , where the Supreme Court has not only approved of the general powers of control over seized goals by the Court on whose search warrant they were seized, as held by Sen, J. in the decision of this Court referred to above, but also their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate's jurisdiction is both under Section 172 Sea Customs Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing a search warrant and after the warrant was issued it is for him to decide in the circumstances of each case whether he would make them over to the Customs authorities or not. The attitude of abdication of those powers by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate only because of the initiation of an adjudication proceeding under Section 182 of the Sea Customs Act has been assailed by Mr. Dutta also on the authority of the Supreme Court decision where their Lordships have said that where the Customs authorities have been somewhat indiscriminate in their seizure, the Magistrate may find it necessary to have the goods or documents scrutinised under his control, so that goods or documents not really subject to the Sea Customs Act are not retained for an unduly long time.
Section 167 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mohammad Serajuddin vs R. C. Mishra on 24 November, 1961
The Supreme Court in Mohammad Serajuddin's case, of the judgment at pp. 762-63 of the report, obliterated that distinction sought to be made by Sen, J. between goods and documents, and only differentiated between the nature of control before and after issue of warrant under Section 172. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held :
Valimahomed Gulamhussain Sonavala And ... vs C.T.A. Pillai, Additional Collector Of ... on 18 December, 1959
15. On the question what is a "package", Mr. Dutta has argued that the word 'package' has been used not only in Section 168 of the Act but has been employed in several other places in the Sea Customs Act, though the word has not been defined in that Act. The ordinary meaning of the word in the English language is "a bundle of things packed up and contained in a receptacle". A receptacle containing packages is not always a package, though sometimes it may be so. He contends that bundles inside the receptacle that are really the "packages". Mr. Dutta has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Valimahomed Gulamhussain Sonavala and Co. v. C.T. A. Pillai, . for contending that a locker in a safety vault cannot itself be a "package", though such locker may have contained several packages. In that reported decision, Desai, J. has quoted a passage from an un-reported decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Dixit and Shelat, JJ.) saying: