LexREMO PAUL ALTOE versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• r r • REMO PAUL ALTOE v. UNION OF INDIA October 13, 1977 [A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.] 719 A Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act II of 1974), s. 452(1)-0rder for dis- B posal of property at conclusion of trial-Confiscated property under the Cuslonzs Acl not produced before the court or in custody or control of the court-The court ca1111ot 1nake an order for disposal of the property u/s. 452(1) of the Cri- n1inal Procedure Code. On a search of the room of the <ippellant, a foreigner, who arrived at Cal- cutta by air from Bangkok on June 28, 1975, the Customs Authorities found 1701 U.S. dollars and 4400 Canadian dollars in his possession. For violation of the provisions of s.13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 C read \Vith s.135 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Chief ~letropOlitan Magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to <>uffer rigorous irnprisonn1ent for six months. The Magistrate further ordered that "the goods involved in this case are confiscated to the State if not already confiscated'". The Calcutta High Court, in revision, affirmed the con- viction but reduced the fine to Rs. 500/- and affirmed the order of confiscation of the dollars. Jn appeal by special leave, the appellant contended that the M~:gistrate had no power of confiscation of the currency and the High Court w~ls in error in affirn1ing that order. D Allowing the appeal, the Court, HELD : (I) An ortler for the disposal of any property u/s. 452(1) of the Cri- n1inal Procedure Code is necessary \vhere the property remains to be disposed of by the Court after the inquiry or trial is over. ]n the present case there was no necessity or occasion for the Court to n1ake an order for disposing of ri.ny proµcrty since the seized foreign currency \Vas not produced before the Magis- trate and was not in the custodv or control of the court when the order of confiscation \Vas n1ade. The order of the Magistrate that the goods involved in the ct1se be confiscated "if not already confiscated" clearly shows that he \Vas not ;rware what had happened to the goods which were in the control of -"the Custon1s Authorities. [721 H, 722 A-BJ (2) It is true that the foreign currency seized from the appellant's possession \Vas property in respect of which an offence was con1mitted but this fact alone -did not call for an order u/s. 452( 1) in the circumstances of the case . [722 BJ fThe court left open to the Customs Authorities to take a decision according io law as early as possible regarding the disposal of the seized currency.] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 191 cf 1977. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 6-12- 76 of the Calcutta High Court in Cr!. Revision No. 1111 /76. R. L. Kohli and S. K. Sablwrwal for the Appellant. Soli J. Sorabjee and Addi. Solicitor General Girish Chandra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . GUPTA, J.-This appeal is by special leave, from a judgment of the E F G Calcutta High Court, this Court in granting special leave limited the H appeal to only one ground, whether the trial court had power to order confiscation of the goods found in appellant's possession while con- victing him-under section 135 of the Customs Act. 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [J 978) 1 S.C.R. A The facts relevant for the purpose of the appeal are these. The appellant is a foreigner who arrived at Calcutta by air from Bangkok on June 28, 1975. On a search of his room in the hotel where he was staying in Calcutta, the Customs authorities found in his possession 1701 U.S. dollars and 4400 Canadian dollars which they seized as. smuggled goods. On September 23, 1975 an Assistant Collector of Customs filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Chief Metro- B politan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had brought in the foreign currency seized from his possession in violation of section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and was therefore liable to be convicted under section 135 of the Customs. Act, 1962. Section 13 (I) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 imposes restrictions on bringing or sending into India any gold or silver or any foreign exchange or any Indian currency. Section 67 of C that Act provides : D E F G H "Application of the Customs Act, 1962. The restrictions imposed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.