Criminal Court Cannot Order Release Of Seized Goods Without Customs Cognizance: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on 13 August held that a regular criminal court cannot exercise powers under the general criminal law to release goods seized under the Customs Act when no cognizance of a Customs offence has been taken.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed a criminal petition filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Dimapur Regional Unit, challenging the 12 March 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur. The order had directed release of 570 bags of seized areca nuts on a Rs. 10 lakh bond and surety. The Bench held:

“..in absence of previous sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, no cognizance of offence under Section 135 of the said Act may be taken by a regular criminal court.”

The case arose from the seizure of around 45,600 kg of areca nuts packed in 570 bags by DRI officials on 20 December 2025. The consignment was intercepted at Kukidolong while being transported towards Dimapur.

The drivers produced transit passes for the consignment. However, the documents covered only 25,000 kg of areca nuts, while the actual quantity found was substantially higher. The goods, valued at approximately Rs. 3.19 crore, were suspected to be of foreign origin and liable to confiscation under the Customs Act.

The DRI contended that only the “proper officer” under the Customs Act could order provisional release of the seized goods. It argued that the Customs Act, being a special statute, would prevail over the general provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The High Court noted that the DRI had filed a complaint invoking several provisions of the Customs Act, including Section 135. However, no previous sanction required under Section 137 had been placed on record. It also found no specific order showing that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence.

Further, the Bench held that without valid cognizance of a Customs offence, the regular criminal court could not exercise jurisdiction under the general criminal law to order release of the seized goods.

It observed that where goods are seized under the Customs Act as they are liable to confiscation or penalty, their provisional release has to be dealt with under Sections 110 and 110A of the Customs Act by the proper officer. A criminal court cannot invoke the general provisions of the BNSS to override the mechanism prescribed under the special statute.

It clarified that the absence of criminal cognizance does not prevent the Customs authorities from independently proceeding with confiscation and penalty proceedings. Such proceedings have to be adjudicated by the authorities specified under Section 122 of the Customs Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 122A. The Bench held:

“..In absence of taking of any cognizance of offence under Chapter-XVI of the Customs Act, 1962 by regular criminal court, the power of provisional release of the seized goods may not be exercised by regular criminal court under the provisions of the general criminal law like BNSS, 2023 overriding the provisions contained in Section 110 and Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which is a special law”

Accordingly, the High Court held that the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge had acted beyond jurisdiction in directing release of the seized areca nuts and set aside the 12 March order.

For petitioner: Z. Kulnu, Standing Counsel, CBIC

For Respondent: C. T. Jamir, Senior Advocate and Aliba Ozukum, Advocate for Respondent no. 2 and E. Thiba Phom, Govt. Advocate for Respondent No. 1