HARADHAN DAS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal revisions arise out of the orders passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 12-3-1986, 13-8-1986 and 16-8-1986.

(2.) The facts are briefly as follows :- The customs department seized some contraband goods along with a truck. The petitioners of Criminal Revision Case No. 1226 of 1986 Hara-dhan Das and Smt. Monika Dey applied for return of the truck on bond. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta overruling the objection of the customs department ordered the return of the seized truck on the petitioner's furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The customs department objected to the return of the truck on the ground that the learned Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to pass the order of return of the truck seized by the customs department as no complaint has yet been filed by the customs and no cognizance of the case had yet been taken by the learned Magistrate. Overruling the said objection of the customs, the order for return of the seized truck in question was passed by the learned Magistrate on the petitioners furnishing bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereafter on the prayer of the customs department, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate observing that as the prosecution raised the question of jurisdiction which was a debatable one, he stayed the operation of the said order so that the customs department could move the superior Court for obtaining necessary orders. Thereafter, the petitioners Haradhan Das and Smt. Monika Dey moved this Court in revision against the subsequent orders of stay of return of the truck being the Criminal Revision Case No. 1226 of 1986. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive), Barasat Customs Division, Calcutta moved the Criminal Revision Case No. 1261 of 1986 against the order dated 12-8-1986 by which the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the return of the seized truck WGA 3993 to the petitioner Smt. Monika Dey after verifying that she was the registered owner of the truck and on condition of producing the same on call and on her furnishing the bond as aforesaid.

(3.) Both these revision petitions are taken up for judgment analogously on consent of both the parties.