VINAYAK GURURAO INAMDAR Vs. BHASKAR VASUDEO SHIRSAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two Writ Petitions arise out of a common order, they are heard together and disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) UPON receipt of information that certain contraband goods have been received by Respondent No. 1 - Bhaskar - who carries on business of running a video parlour in the town of Kudal in Ratnagiri district, certain officers of the customs department visited his premises on 18/05/1985, searched them and seized a foreign made V. C. R. and demonstration cassette. On 12/07/1985, Respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint against Petitioners - Vinayak Inamdar and Deepak Karadkar - under Sections 380, 451, 452, 504, 506 (2), 323 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kudal and applied for release of the V. C. R. on 'supurtnama'. The learned Magistrate did not register the complaint, ordered inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. and without issuing any notice to the Customs Department, sent a communication ordering release of the V. C. R. The Customs Department brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the order passed was illegal and should be reviewed. The learned Magistrate thereafter heard the Customs Department, but maintained his order of release.

(3.) THE two accused in the said private complaint and the Union of India have filed these petitions for quashing the complaint and so also the orders passed by the learned Magistrate for release of the goods. It is apparent that the power under Section 457 Cr. P. C. could not have been exercised by the learned Magistrate, since the property was seized by the Customs Officers under the Customs Act and those officers are not "police officer" as contemplated under Section 457. The point about the Customs Officers not being police officers is no more res integra, having been concluded by series of decisions of Supreme Court, e. g. Badaku Joti v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1746 : (1966 Cri LJ 1353 ). Following the said decision, this Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs v. Smt. Maria Rege, 1991 Cri LJ 229 has held that the Magistrate cannot exercise jurisdiction under the said provisions to release property seized by the Customs Officers under the Customs Act. We entirely agree with the conclusion as well as reasoning adopted in the said judgment rendered by the learned single judge.