Magistrate Cannot Release Customs-Seized Vehicles Under CrPC: Meghalaya High Court Rules on Jurisdictional Limits
Introduction
A significant question of jurisdictional competence came before the Meghalaya High Court in the matter of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs Ajay Babu Manda: whether a Judicial Magistrate is empowered to order the release of vehicles seized by Customs authorities by invoking Sections 451/457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), when the Customs Act, 1962 itself contains a dedicated mechanism for provisional release of seized goods. The Court answered unequivocally in the negative, holding that the Magistrate had acted entirely without jurisdiction.
This ruling carries considerable weight for Customs enforcement practice, clarifying the boundary between the general criminal procedure law and the special statutory framework embedded in the Customs Act, 1962.
Background and Factual Matrix
The Interception and Seizure
Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit, acting on specific intelligence, intercepted three trucks bearing registration numbers AP16TH-7137, AP16TH-7277, and AP16TE-5670 on 09.04.2021 near Thangshalai village on NH-6, East Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya, between 06:00 hours and 06:15 hours.
Upon searching the trucks, officers discovered and seized 1,500 bags of foreign-origin black pepper weighing approximately 75,000 kgs. Three drivers and two helpers accompanying the trucks were arrested. The trucks themselves were also seized under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
Magistrate's Order
The owners of two of the seized trucks — bearing registration numbers AP16TH-7137 and AP16TH-7277 — moved applications before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong under Sections 451/457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim release of their vehicles. By a common order dated 20.07.2021, the learned Magistrate allowed these applications and directed release of the vehicles on a bond of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each.
Departmental Challenge
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence challenged the Magistrate's order before the Sessions Judge, Shillong through criminal revision petitions — Crl. Revision No. 5 (H) of 2021 and Crl. Revision No. 6 (H) of 2021. The Sessions Judge, however, upheld the Magistrate's order vide an order dated 25.10.2021, finding no jurisdictional infirmity.
Aggrieved by the Sessions Judge's decision, the Directorate thereafter approached the Meghalaya High Court by way of two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Arguments Before the High Court
Department's Contentions
Senior counsel for the petitioner raised the following core submissions:
- Special Statute Prevails: The Customs Act, 1962 is a special enactment containing explicit provisions for search, seizure, arrest, and release of seized goods.
Section 110empowers the proper officer to seize goods liable to confiscation, andSection 110-Aspecifically provides for provisional release of such seized goods, documents, or things to the owner pending adjudication, upon execution of a bond with appropriate security and conditions. When this specialized mechanism exists, the Magistrate had no occasion to invoke the general remedy underSection 451 Cr.P.C.