(1.) This revisional application by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, is directed against an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, dated 24-1-1956, for the return of the document seized in execution of two search warrants under Section 172, sea Customs Act, 1878, to the opposite party Gajanand Patriwalla on his executing bond for Rs. 10,000/-.
(2.) The facts are briefly as follows: On 8-11-1955, the Assistant Collector of Customs made an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for the issue of a search warrant with respect to premises No. 14, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, under Section 172, Sea Customs Act, stating in the application that he believed that dutiable, prohibited, restricted and smuggled goods and documents relating thereto were secreted in the premises, and a search warrant was issued on the same day for search ana seizure of illicitly imported goods and documents relating thereto. On 9-11-1955, on another application a second search warrant was issued for search and seizure of goods and documents relating to illicit import as well as to illicit export. On the strength of the two search warrants the premises of Messrs. Palriwalla Brothers Ltd. and other premises at No. 14 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, were searched during the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 14th November, 1955, and over 600 files, registers and other papers were seized along With rubber stamps, but no prohibited goods were found or seized. On 17-11-1955, the opposite party Gajanand Palriwalla made an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for the immediate return of the documents seized and also for copies of the application by the Assistant Collector of. Customs, Calcutta, the search warrants and the search lists. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate passed an order for giving the copies out rejected the prayer for return of the documents at that stage and ordered detaining of the same till 28-11-1955. On 28-11-1955, the opposite party filed another petition for return of the documents. But after hearing the lawyer for the petitioner the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate granted time till 28-12-1955, to complete examination of the papers. On 28-12-1955, the opposite party renewed his prayer for return of the documents, while on behalf of the Customs Department a petition was filed stating that the examination of all the papers would take a long time, that some papers which did not appear to be incriminating had already been returned to the opposite party and that as the papers had been seized in execution of search warrants under Section 172, Sea Customs Act it was not necessary to produce the documents before the Court, and that after scrutiny of the books and documents and disposal of adjudication proceedings by the Customs Collector the papers and goods would be disposed of according to the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. The learned Magistrate, however, granted time till 24-1-1956, to complete the examination of the papers. On 24-1-1956, the opposite party renewed his prayer for return of the seized books and papers. On behalf of the Customs Department another petition was filed stating that the examination of the books and papers was not complete and repeating the contention that the books and papers were not required to be produced before the learned Magistrate but were to be disposed of by the Customs Department. The learned Magistrate thereupon observed that the books and papers had been seized under search warrants issued by him and he could not, therefore, surrender his jurisdiction. He then passed the order complained against, namely, that the books and papers be returned to the opposite party Gajanand Palriwalla on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/-.
(3.) Mr. Kar appearing for the Assistant Collector of Customs has urged that when goods and documents are seized in execution of a search warrant issued under Section 172, Sea Customs Act, they are not required to be produced before the Magistrate issuing the search warrant, and that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order in respect of them and that they are to be produced before the Customs authorities and the Customs Collector is the proper authority to order the final disposal thereof. In support of his contention Mr. Kar relied upon two recent decisions of this Court, namely, the decision of Debabrata Mookerjee J. in the case of Calcutta Motor and Cycle Co. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta, Criminal Revn Case No. 693 of 1955, D/- 6-9-55 (A) and the decision of Sinha J. in the case of Calcutta Motor Cycle Co. v. Collector Of Customs, The first case was concerned with the question whether search warrants issued under Section 172, Sea Customs Act on the basis of applications by a Customs Collector stating his belief were legal and valid. The second case which was one under Article 226 of the Constitution was concerned mainly with the question whether Section 171A, Sea Customs Act providing for summons to produce documents were ultra vires of Article 20(3) of the Constitution; the question whether seizure could validly be made under a search warrant issued under Section 172, Sea Customs Act also came up for consideration in that case.