THE COMMANDANT, 68, BN. BSF GAKULNAGAR versus SHRI ARJUN DAS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 16-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE COMMANDANT, 68, BN. BSF GAKULNAGAR 
A 
v. 
SHRI ARJUN DAS AND ANOTHER 
OCTOBER 16, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
B 
Seizure of sugar bags and arrest of driver of a jeep by an officer of 
Border Security Force-Judicial Magistrate observed that BSF had no 
authority to seize sugar on public road, hence, directed release of the accused C 
and also directed Company Commandant, BSF to enquire into the matter-
Appeal against dismissed by Single Judge of High Court-On appeal, Held: 
Observations made by the Judicial Magistrate prima facie do not appear to 
be sustainable-Judicial Magistrate is directed to complete the trial 
expeditiously taking into consideration relevant Notifications on the subject 
issued by Government of India. 
D 
On 31.12.1998, Assistant Commandant of BSF with special Patrol party 
carried out special operation and intercepted one Jeep with 44 bags of sugar 
in the vicinity of Indo-Bangladesh Border. The Driver of the Jeep, respondent 
no.I was asked to produce documents relating to the stock and transportation 
of sugar which was carried in the Jeep, but he could not produce the E 
documents. Since the place ofseizure was at a short distance from the border, 
it raised suspicion in the mind of the Officer that the goods were intended for 
smuggling to Bangladesh. The Officer, therefore, arrested respondent no. I 
and seized the sugar bags. The arrested person was handed over to the Police 
and the seized articles were handed over to the Inspector of Customs. F 
Respondent no.I was produced before SDJM. SDJM took serious view of the 
functioning of the BSF and held that the BSF personnel were with their arms 
and might have disobeyed all legal directions and the police was giving 
indulgence to them by acting on their directions. He directed release of the 
accused at once and also directed Company Commander, BSF to enquire into 
the matter and report. Questioning the correctness of the order passed by G 
SDJM, the appellant filed revision petition before the High Court. Single 
Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the order passed by the SDJM has no sanction 
251 
H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A in law as he failed to take into consideration Notifications issued by Ministry 
of Defence and Department of Revenue, which dealt with functioning of the 
BSF personnel posted in the State of Assam etc.; and that without granting 
opportunity to the particular BSF personnel to place relevant facts for 
consideration, SDJM came to the conclusion that an innocent person had been 
B illegally detained. 
Respondents submitted that there was absenre of power by the BSF 
functionaries to act in the manner as they acted. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: Since the trial is still pending, the conclusions arrived at by 
SDJM were not appropriate. The stage to decide whether the detention of the 
respondent and/or the authority of the BSF Assistant Commandant was yet to 
be tested in trial. SDJM made some observations, which prima facie do not 
appear to be sustainable. These are matters which were to be decided in the 
D trial itself. Since the occurrence is nearly 7 years old it would be appropriate 
to direct the SDJM to complete the trial of the case as expeditiously as 
practicable. The directions given by him for conducting enquiry shall not be 
carried out. The effect of the two notifications referred to by the appellants 
shall be duly considered during trial. [254-E, F, GI 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 056 of 
2006. 
From the Final Order dated 24.3.2005 of the High Court Tripura (Agartala 
Bench) in Criminal Rev. P. No. 07of1999. 
F 
A. Sharan, A.S.G., K. Amreshwari, Rekha Pandey and Sushma Suri for 
the Appellant. 
Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas and Nishakant Pandey for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single · 
Judge of the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench. By the impugned order 
High Court upheld the direction given for inquiry by learned SDJM, Belonia, 
H South Tripura. The revision petition was filed under the Code of Criminal 
THE COMMANDANT, 68, BN. BSF GAKULNAGAR 1·. AR.JUN DAS (PASA YAT,J.] 
253 
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C' .) 
A 
Factual background as projected by the appellant is as follows:-
On 31.12.1998 at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.