The Gauhati High Court has held that a regular criminal court cannot invoke the general provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to order the provisional release of goods seized under the Customs Act, 1962 when cognizance of a customs offence has not been taken and quashed an order directing the release of 570 bags of allegedly smuggled foreign-origin areca nuts valued at approximately Rs.3.19 crore.
The bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, observed that where goods have been seized on the ground that they are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, their provisional release pending adjudication must be considered by the “proper officer” under Sections 110 and 110A of the Act.
Buy Now: 70+ Judgements Indirect Tax – July 2026 | E-Magazine
The petition was filed by the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence challenging the order dated March 12, 2026 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur.
The Sessions Court had directed the release on Zimma of 570 bags of areca nuts upon the claimant furnishing a bond of Rs.10 lakh along with a surety to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.
The proceedings arose from information allegedly received by DRI officers on December 19, 2025 that certain trucks were transporting smuggled foreign-origin areca nuts from Manipur to Dimapur.
Acting on the information, a surveillance team was deployed at Kukidolong on the National Highway leading towards Dimapur. At about 7 am on December 20, 2025, the officers intercepted two trucks.
The truck drivers reportedly informed the officers that the areca nuts had been loaded in Ukhrul district of Manipur and were intended for delivery in Dimapur.
A search of the vehicles allegedly resulted in the recovery of 570 bags containing approximately 45,600 kg of areca nuts. The consignment was estimated to be worth Rs.3,19,52,376.
The drivers produced a transit pass stated to have been issued by the Forest Department, Phek Division, Government of Nagaland. The DRI, however, alleged that the transit pass covered only 25,000 kg of areca nuts, whereas the quantity recovered from the trucks was 45,600 kg.
Suspecting that the goods were smuggled and of foreign origin, the authorities seized the consignment, the two trucks and the accompanying documents under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Proceedings under the Customs Act were thereafter initiated, although the judgment recorded that a show cause notice under Section 124 had yet to be issued.
The claimant maintained that the areca nuts had been lawfully purchased from M/s Zamzam Traders, which had acquired them through a public auction conducted by the Government of Manipur.
It was contended that the goods had earlier been seized and confiscated and were described as Burmese-origin, non-edible supari. Following confiscation, the Government allegedly sold the goods through a public auction.
The claimant argued that since the consignment had been purchased from its lawful owner and was being transported with transit passes issued by the Governments of Manipur and Nagaland, no offence could be attributed to him.
The claimant approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur, seeking interim custody of the seized consignment. The Sessions Court accepted the request and ordered its release against the Rs.10 lakh bond and surety.
Challenging that order, the DRI argued before the High Court that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to release goods seized by customs authorities under Section 110 of the Customs Act.
The Department submitted that the Customs Act is a special enactment and would prevail over the general provisions of the BNSS. It maintained that the power to order the provisional release of seized goods is vested in the proper customs officer under Section 110A.
According to the DRI, the proper officer in the present matter would be an officer empowered to adjudicate confiscation and penalties under Section 122 of the Customs Act. It was further argued that the goods had not been produced before the criminal court following their seizure and, therefore, the power under Section 497 of the BNSS could not have been exercised.
The State of Nagaland, however, defended the Sessions Court’s order. It contended that a complaint had been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, mentioning Sections 7(1), 11, 104, 110, 112 and 135 of the Customs Act and that G.R. Case No. 718 of 2025 had consequently been registered.
On that basis, the State argued that the criminal court possessed the jurisdiction to deal with property seized during the investigation under Section 497 of the BNSS.
After examining the record, the High Court noted that the DRI had filed a complaint on December 21, 2025 against two persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur. The complaint referred to Sections 7(1), 11, 104, 110, 112 and 135 of the Customs Act.
The Court, however, found that no prior sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs was available on the record. It also found that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not passed any specific order taking cognizance of an offence.
The High Court pointed out that among the various provisions quoted in the DRI complaint, only Section 135 related to an offence under the Customs Act. Under Section 137, previous sanction from the appropriate customs authority is necessary before a court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 135.
“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 Court observed.
As cognizance had not been taken, the Sessions Court’s exercise of jurisdiction to release the seized goods was held to be beyond its authority.
The High Court clarified that the absence of cognizance by the criminal court would not prevent the competent customs authorities from independently proceeding with confiscation of the seized goods or the imposition of penalties.
If sufficient grounds existed, the customs authorities could initiate and continue such proceedings under the Customs Act. Any question concerning confiscation or penalty would have to be decided by the officers specified under Section 122 by following the procedure prescribed under Section 122A and the other applicable provisions.
The Court distinguished between criminal prosecution under Chapter XVI of the Customs Act and departmental adjudication relating to confiscation and penalties.
It observed that when the seizure is based on the likelihood of confiscation or the imposition of a penalty, provisional release pending adjudication must be dealt with by the proper customs officer under Sections 110 and 110A.
“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,” the High Court held.
The claimant had also informed the Court that a Coordinate Bench, in a separate writ petition, had on April 9, 2026 directed the immediate release of the same 570 bags of areca nuts.
Since the authorities allegedly failed to comply with that direction, a contempt petition was subsequently filed. In the contempt proceedings, the authorities were reportedly asked on July 20, 2026 to demonstrate compliance with the earlier release order.
Justice Kalita clarified that the present criminal petition was concerned only with the legality of the Sessions Court’s order dated March 12, 2026. The judgment, therefore, did not adjudicate the separate release direction issued by the Coordinate Bench in the writ proceedings.
Concluding that the Sessions Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction by ordering release under the BNSS, the High Court set aside the March 12 order and allowed the DRI’s criminal petition.
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.
Read More: This Is Why Refund of GST Paid During Search Refused: Delhi High Court
