Case Law Details
Union of India Vs Tanmoy Saha (Tripura High Court)
In the case of Union of India Vs Tanmoy Saha, the Tripura High Court considered a criminal leave petition filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Agartala in CR No.239 of 2017. The trial court had acquitted the accused persons and also ordered release of the seized articles.
The Union of India argued that the trial court wrongly ordered release of the seized items despite confiscation proceedings having already been concluded by competent authorities. It was submitted that the confiscation orders passed by the customs authorities had been upheld by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Guwahati and subsequently affirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata. According to the appellant, the trial court’s direction for release of the seized items contradicted orders passed by the appellate authorities which had already attained finality.
The respondents argued that the prosecution itself had closed its evidence after examining only one witness, and the witness did not support the prosecution case regarding recovery and seizure of the prohibited items. The respondents further submitted that they had no objection regarding confiscation of the gold items.
Regarding the motorcycle, the respondents submitted that the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Guwahati had already permitted release of the vehicle on payment of redemption fine of Rs.15,000 under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and after payment of the amount, the motorcycle had been released. As regards the bicycle, it was submitted that the concerned accused person had died and had not made any claim over the bicycle during his lifetime.
The High Court observed that it was undisputed that gold items had been seized and confiscated by the customs authorities. The Court held that the confiscation of gold items prima facie contradicted the trial court’s order directing release of the seized articles. However, with respect to acquittal, the Court noted that only one prosecution witness had been examined and even that witness did not support the prosecution case.
Considering these facts, the High Court granted leave only in relation to the challenge against the release of the seized items ordered by the trial court. The Court declined to grant leave against the acquittal of the accused persons. Accordingly, the appeal was permitted to proceed only on the issue relating to release of seized items.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Heard Ld. Counsel of both sides.
[2] The Leave has been sought to challenge the Judgment dated 25.4.2025 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Agartala in CR No.239 of 2017 whereby the respondents were acquitted, and simultaneously, the order for release of the seized articles was also passed. Ld. Counsel Mr. Arindam Roy for the appellant submits that the acquittal was not proper and even the Ld. Trial Court also exercised its power going beyond the provision of law by ordering release of the seized items, though already the matter of confiscation of those items were already passed by different fora including the office of the Commissioner of Central Tax(Appeals) at Guwahati (Annexure-5). The matter was also challenged again in another appeal before the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata which also affirmed the said order. Therefore, according to Ld. Counsel Mr. Roy, the order of Ld. Magistrate is clearly contradicting with the order passed by said Appellate Authorities which has already reached finality.
[3] Ld. Counsel Mr. Bhaskar Deb for the respondents, however, submits that on the prayer of prosecution itself, the evidence of prosecution was closed and only one witness was examined in the case who even did not support the recovery and seizure of the prohibitory items from the respondents.
[4] Ld. Counsel Mr. Deb also submits that regarding confiscation of gold items, the respondents have no objection. However, the seized motorcycle was released as per order dated 09.11.2017 of the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Guwahati wherein at paragraph No.18 it was observed by said authority that the adjudication authority was correct in confiscation of the motorcycle with an option to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act,1962. According to Ld. Counsel Mr. Deb, after deposit of said Rs.15,000/-, the motor cycle was released. Regarding confiscation of the bicycle, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel Mr. Deb that the concerned accused person namely, Alim Hussain had already expired and during his lifetime also he had not laid any claim regarding the bicycle. Therefore, according to Ld. Counsel, Mr. Deb, there is no reason to grant leave or admit the appeal.
[5] Considered the submissions of both sides.
[6] It is not disputed between the parties that certain gold items were seized and confiscated by the custom authority. Even if the matter of confiscation of motorcycle and bicycle are kept aside, such fact of confiscation of gold items itself prima facie contradicts with the judgment of Ld. Trial Court. However, so far the acquittal of the accused persons are concerned, it appears from the impugned Judgment that only one witness was examined by the prosecution and he also even did not support the prosecution case.
[7] Considering all these aspects, leave is granted only with reference to the challenge of the petitioner appellant in respect of order passed by Ld. Trial Court regarding release of the seized items.
So far the acquittal of the present respondents is concerned, the leave, as sought for, is not granted. Therefore, the appeal will be heard only in the matter of release of seized items.
The Criminal Leave Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Author Bio
