The Gauhati High Court has held that where goods are seized by Customs authorities for alleged contravention of the Customs Act, 1962 and the matter remains at the stage of confiscation and penalty proceedings, a regular criminal court cannot invoke the general provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to order provisional release of the seized goods.
The bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita ruled that the special mechanism under the Customs Act would prevail over the general criminal procedure.
The bench set aside an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur, which had directed release of 570 bags of seized areca nuts on furnishing a bond of ₹10 lakh along with surety.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The case arose from a DRI interception carried out on December 20, 2025, after intelligence was received that trucks carrying allegedly smuggled foreign-origin areca nuts from Manipur were likely to reach Dimapur. A surveillance team was accordingly deployed at Kukidolong on the National Highway leading towards Dimapur.
At around 7:00 a.m., DRI officers intercepted two trucks. On examination, the vehicles were found carrying 570 bags of areca nuts weighing approximately 45,600 kg, with an estimated value of ₹3,19,52,376.
During interrogation, the drivers produced transit passes purportedly issued by the Forest Department, Phek Division, Government of Nagaland. However, the DRI found a significant discrepancy: the transit pass covered only 25,000 kg of areca nuts, whereas the actual quantity recovered from the trucks was approximately 45,600 kg.
The discrepancy led the authorities to suspect that the consignment was smuggled and of foreign origin. The areca nuts, the trucks and other articles and documents were consequently seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the allegation that they were liable for confiscation. The persons allegedly connected with the goods were also arrested, and investigation under the Customs Act commenced. The judgment records that a show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act had not yet been issued at that stage.
During the pendency of the investigation, the claimant approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur, asserting ownership over the seized areca nuts and seeking their release on zimma.
The Sessions Court, by order dated March 12, 2026, directed release of the 570 bags upon furnishing a bond of ₹10 lakh and providing surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The DRI challenged that order before the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
The DRI argued that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to release goods seized under the Customs Act. According to the Customs authorities, the Customs Act is a special statute and its provisions governing seizure and provisional release must prevail over the general provisions of the BNSS.
Appearing for the DRI, Standing Counsel for the CBIC submitted that Sections 110(1A) and 110A of the Customs Act specifically deal with disposal and provisional release of goods seized under Section 110.
The DRI argued that where seized goods are perishable or otherwise fall within the statutory framework for provisional release, the authority empowered under the Customs Act—not the regular criminal court—must exercise the relevant powers. The Customs authorities further contended that the competent authority would be the officer empowered to adjudicate confiscation and penalty proceedings under Section 122 of the Customs Act.
The DRI also argued that since the seized areca nuts had not been produced before the criminal court, the court could not exercise powers under the general criminal law to order their release.
The DRI relied upon a coordinate Bench decision in Union of India v. Sayad Ali Laskar, decided on May 8, 2026, to support its jurisdictional objection.
The claimant, on the other hand, disputed the allegation of unlawful possession and asserted that the areca nuts had been purchased, which had acquired them through a public auction conducted by the Government of Manipur.
It was argued that the goods were transported from Manipur to Dimapur with transit passes issued by the Governments of Manipur and Nagaland. The claimant further relied upon an order dated October 31, 2024, issued by the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forest/Territorial-II, Imphal, which indicated that the consignment had earlier been seized and confiscated and was subsequently sold through public auction.
The claimant maintained that having purchased the goods from the lawful owner following the government auction, no offence could be attributed to him. It was also argued that because a criminal case had been registered in connection with the subsequent seizure, the Sessions Court was competent to order release of the property on bond and surety.
The court examined the scheme of the Customs Act governing seizure, provisional release, adjudication, confiscation and prosecution.
The Court noted that Section 110 of the Customs Act authorises seizure of goods, documents and things that are liable to confiscation. Section 110A provides for release of seized goods, documents or things pending adjudication. The Court also referred to Section 122, which identifies the authorities competent to adjudicate confiscation and penalties, while Section 122A prescribes the procedure for such adjudication.
The Court noted that Sections 132 to 136 define various offences and that Section 137 requires previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs before cognizance of certain offences, including an offence under Section 135, can be taken by a court.
The Court emphasised that, among the provisions invoked in the complaint, Section 135 is the provision relating to an offence under the Customs Act, and taking cognizance of such an offence requires the statutory sanction contemplated by Section 137.
The Court held that in the absence of the requisite previous sanction, a regular criminal court could not take cognizance of an offence under Section 135. It therefore concluded that the Sessions Court’s order directing release of the seized goods was beyond its jurisdiction.
The High Court clarified that its ruling did not prevent the Customs authorities from independently continuing confiscation and penalty proceedings.
The Court observed that even though cognizance of the Customs offence had not been taken, there was no prohibition against the appropriate authorities proceeding with confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalties for alleged contraventions of the Customs Act, provided sufficient grounds existed.
Such proceedings, the Court held, must be dealt with by the authorities specified under Section 122, following the adjudication procedure prescribed under Section 122A and other applicable provisions of the Customs Act.
The central legal issue was whether a regular criminal court could rely upon the general property-release powers under the BNSS when the goods had been seized specifically under the Customs Act and that statute contained its own mechanism for provisional release.
The High Court answered the question in favour of the Customs statutory framework.
It held that where seizure is confined to the possibility of confiscation and imposition of penalty for contravention of the Customs Act, provisional release pending adjudication must be governed by the provisions of Sections 110 and 110A of the Customs Act, to be exercised by the proper officer.
The Court specifically ruled that, in the absence of cognizance of an offence under Chapter XVI of the Customs Act by a regular criminal court, the criminal court cannot invoke the general provisions of the BNSS to order provisional release of seized goods in a manner that overrides Sections 110 and 110A of the Customs Act.
The High Court concluded that the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur had exceeded jurisdiction by invoking the BNSS to order release of the seized areca nuts on zimma.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
