ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. MISRIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision ease has been posted before us, as Natarajan, J. before whom the matter originally came up, found himself unable to agree with the decision of Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. , in Misrimal Hansraj v. Union of India (UOI) 1974 Mad LW (Cri) 134 : 1975 Cri LJ 1617.

(2.) THE facts of the ease are briefly as follows. A search was conducted in the shop of the respondents on 8-12-1969 by a Preventive Officer of the Customs Department, who seized 384 wrist watches of foreign make in the reasonable belief that they had not been licitly imported into this country. Adjudication proceedings were taken by the Customs Department and after due observance of all formalities the Assistant Collector of Customs levied a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-on the first respondent and ordered confiscation of the wrist-watches.

(3.) IN addition to the adjudication proceedings, a criminal prosecution was also launched. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who tried the case, acquitted the respondents on the ground that the prosecution had failed to show that the wrist watches were smuggled goods liable to confiscation Under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Following the decision in Misrimal Hansraj v. Union of India (UOI) 1974 Mad LW (Cri) 134 : 1975 Cri LJ 1617 the Magistrate held that the respondents were entitled to the return of the wrist watches and the Customs authorities who were in possession of the wrist watches were directed to re-deposit them into Court for effecting their delivery to the second respondent. The Customs Department preferred an appeal to the Principal Sessions Judge against that part of the trial Court's order which directed the re-deposit of the property. Relying on the decision of Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. , above referred to, the Sessions Judge also dismissed the appeal. After an elaborate discussion of the various provisions of the Customs Act, and the decisions of the various Courts, Natarajan, J. , found himself unable to agree with the decision of Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. and considered it necessary that the matter should be placed before a Bench. That is how the matter has come up before us.