B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector of customs Vs. Mohmed Azan Khan and Others

Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case of B.S. Rawat, Assistant Collector of Customs v. Mohmed Azan Khan and Others concerned the arrest of the respondents for possession of heroin. The respondents were produced before the Additional Sessions Judge, who remanded them to judicial custody. However, the Assistant Collector of Customs filed an application seeking custody of the respondents for the purpose of investigation under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Additional Sessions Judge granted the application and made over the respondents to the custody of the Customs Authorities for a period of 14 days. The respondents challenged this order before the High Court of Bombay on the ground that the Customs Authorities did not have the jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The High Court, after considering the provisions of Section 5 and 67 of the NDPS Act, held that the Customs Authorities did have the jurisdiction to investigate offences under the NDPS Act. The Court also held that the Additional Sessions Judge was entitled to make over the respondents to the custody of the Customs Authorities for the purpose of investigation under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondents’ challenge to the order granting custody to the Customs Authorities was therefore dismissed by the High Court.\

ISSUE RAISED

The issue in the case of B.S. Rawat, Assistant Collector of Customs v. Mohmed Azan Khan and Others was whether the Customs Authorities had the jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and whether the Additional Sessions Judge was entitled to make over the respondents to the custody of the Customs Authorities for the purpose of investigation under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

• The petitioner, in this case, argued that the Customs Authorities had the jurisdiction to investigate offences under the NDPS Act, and the respondents were arrested in connection with such an offence. The NDPS Act is a special law that deals with offences related to narcotics and psychotropic substances. It provides for the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences related to these substances. The Customs Authorities had the jurisdiction to investigate offences under the NDPS Act, and the respondents were arrested in connection with such an offence.
• The petitioner also relied on Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for the detention of a person arrested in connection with a non-bailable offence. The Additional Sessions Judge, in exercise of his powers under this section, had the power to make over such person to the custody of the Customs Authorities for the purpose of investigation. Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the detention of a person arrested in connection with a non-bailable offence, and the Additional Sessions Judge had the power to make over such person to the custody of the Customs Authorities for the purpose of investigation.
• The petitioner argued that the respondents were not entitled to be released on bail as they were in possession of a large quantity of heroin, which is a prohibited substance under the NDPS Act. The possession of such a substance is a serious offence under the Act, and the petitioner argued that the respondents were a flight risk and might tamper with the evidence if released on bail. Therefore, the petitioner requested the court to grant custody of the respondents to the Customs Authorities for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner argued that the respondents were not entitled to be released on bail as they were in possession of a large quantity of heroin, which is a prohibited substance under the NDPS Act.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

• The respondents argued that the Additional Sessions Judge did not have the power to hand over the accused to the Customs authorities for custody. They contended that the Customs authorities are not authorized under the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate cases involving offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and therefore cannot claim custody of the accused for investigation purposes.
• They further argued that the Assistant Collector of Customs had no jurisdiction to seek the custody of the accused, as he was not a police officer or an officer authorized under the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate such offences. They contended that the Assistant Collector of Customs was only authorized to seize the contraband, but not to arrest the accused or seek their custody for investigation.
• The respondents also argued that the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act provide for a special procedure for investigation and trial of offences under the Act, and that the Assistant Collector of Customs and the Customs authorities cannot interfere with the same. They contended that the Assistant Collector of Customs had no power to investigate or prosecute cases under the Act, and could not claim custody of the accused for any purpose.

JUDGEMENT

In this case, the High Court of Bombay held that the Additional Sessions Judge was authorized under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code to make over an accused to the custody of the Customs Authorities for the purpose of investigation under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court held that the Customs Authorities have the power to investigate and arrest persons for offenses under the NDPS Act, and as such, they have the authority to take custody of the accused for investigation purposes. The court also noted that the Customs Authorities were entitled to hold the accused in custody for a maximum of 30 days under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court further held that the Sessions Court could not interfere with the decision of the Customs Authorities to grant bail or release the accused, as it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities to do so. Therefore, the High Court of Bombay allowed the application of the Assistant Collector of Customs and held that the Additional Sessions Judge was entitled to make over the accused to the custody of the Customs Authorities for the purpose of investigation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge had the power under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code to make over an arrested person to the custody of the Customs Authorities for the purpose of investigation in a case relating to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Customs Authorities were deemed to be police officers for the purposes of the Criminal Procedure Code, and they were empowered to investigate offences under the Act. The court also held that the jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities was not restricted to offences committed in Customs areas, but extended to offences committed anywhere in India. Therefore, the detention of the accused by the Customs Authorities was not illegal or without jurisdiction, and the writ petition filed by the accused was dismissed.

written by Tushar Khandekar intern under legal vidhiya

Admin