V GOVINDASWAMI Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's car MDO 6861 was seized by the Central Excise Department at Madras on the 22nd of February, 1971 Diamonds : Jewellery and Ornaments Worth Rs. 1,46,888/- were found in this car. The Collector of Central Excise has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to state as to why the car should not be confiscated Adjudication proceedings are now pending before him. The petitioner applied to the Collector of Central Excise for the return of the car. The latter did not pass any orders on his application. With these allegations the petitioner has filed this application requesting this Court to direct the Collector of Central Excise to release the car to him. The Collector in his counter contends that adjudication proceedings are now pending before him, that no criminal proceedings as such have commenced, that the matter is not before any criminal Court and that as such the petitioner cannot invoke Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the issue of any directions for the release of the car as prayed for by him.

(2.) SECTION 533 Cr. P. C. does not apply because this is not a case of seizure by a police officer. The Customs Act is a self-contained code containing provisions regarding the search, seizure, confiscation, etc. Section 106 of the Customs Act empowers the Officers to stop and search conveyances used for smuggling of goods. Section 115 enables them to confiscate such conveyances. Section 110 relates to the seizure of goods, documents and other things. Sections 111 to 121 confer upon them powers to confiscate the goods seized under Section 110 of the Act. Once goods or documents are seized under Section 110 (2) the Collector has powers to retain the goods and documents for a period of six months, but this period is capable of being further extended by him. Thus, when a Collector of Customs seizes and retains any goods he does so in exercise of a statutory authority conferred on him by the Act. The proceedings before him are not criminal in nature. It has been so held in Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab and Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay. The Court can take cognizance of the offence under the Customs Act when a complaint is actually filed before it by the officers with the previous sanction of the Collector under Section 137 of the Customs Act. If there is no criminal proceeding this Section 561a, Cr. P. C. could not be invoked.

(3.) FURTHER, when a statutory authority is exercising his powers conferred on him by the statute Section 561-A Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked so as to prevent him from exercising those powers. In State of West Bengal v. Basak the High Court of Calcutta quashed the investigation started against Basak for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code On the date when he moved the High Court the police had merely filed a written report in the Court. Investigation had started. Observing that there was no case pending against Basak at that time excepting that he had appeared before the Court and was admitted to bail, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that Section 561-A Cr. P. C. could not be invoked to prevent a statutory authority exercising powers conferred upon him under the statute. Their Lordships observe as below: