Standard Criminal Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Release Goods Seized Under the Special Provisions of the Customs Act

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized a truck (AS-26-C-9100) carrying 19,85,000 sticks of smuggled foreign-origin cigarettes

Three individuals were arrested and remanded to judicial custody

The respondent, the registered owner of the truck, filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) for the release of the vehicle

Despite the DRI's objection that the Criminal Court lacked jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962, the ASJ granted custody of the truck to the respondent via an order dated 24.06.2025

The Union of India challenged this order before the Gauhati High Court

The court applied Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which empowers the "Adjudicating Authority" or "Proper Officer" to provisionally release seized goods/conveyances pending adjudication

It invoked the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (special law overrides general law), supported by Section 5 of the Cr.P.C. (and its BNSS equivalent), which mandates that the Code shall not affect any special jurisdiction or procedure prescribed by other laws

The court also relied on Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Ajay Babu Manda (Meghalaya HC) and Union of India v. Chungnunga (Gauhati HC), highlighting that smuggled goods fall under the exclusive domain of the Customs Department's statutory framework

The Court reasoned that the Customs Act, 1962, is a self-contained special statute providing a complete mechanism for seizure, adjudication, and appeal (Sections 128-130)

Since Section 110A specifically designates the "Proper Officer" as the authority for provisional release, a Magistrate or Sessions Judge cannot exercise general powers under Section 497 BNSS (formerly Section 451/457 Cr.P.C.) to bypass this administrative jurisdiction

The Court found the ASJ's reliance on Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat misplaced, as that precedent addressed general criminal procedure and did not authorize the displacement of specialized statutory authorities under the Customs Act

Consequently, the ASJ acted without jurisdiction by granting custody of a vehicle that was never produced before the Criminal Court but held under the Customs Act's regulatory scheme

The Gauhati High Court allowed the petition and set aside the ASJ's order dated 24.06.2025. The respondent was granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority under the Customs Act, 1962, for the release of the truck, with a direction to the competent authority to decide the prayer on its merits