In a significant ruling on the interplay between special and general criminal laws, the Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) has set aside an order of the Sessions Judge, Dimapur, granting zimma of 570 bags of seized foreign-origin areca nuts worth over Rs. 3.19 crore, holding that the power of provisional release of goods seized under the Customs Act, 1962 lies exclusively with the proper officer under Sections 110 and 110A, and cannot be exercised by a regular criminal court under Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023.
The Court emphasised that where goods are seized by the customs authorities under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, on suspicion of being smuggled and liable to confiscation, and no cognizance of any offence under Chapter-XVI of the said Act has been validly taken by the regular criminal court for want of the mandatory previous sanction of the appropriate customs authority under Section 137, the regular criminal court has no jurisdiction to exercise the power of provisional release of such seized goods under Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023.
The power of provisional release of goods seized under the Customs Act, pending adjudication, lies exclusively with the proper officer designated under Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962, in accordance with the procedure laid down under Sections 110 and 110A read with Section 122A of the said Act. The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, being a special law, override the general criminal law provisions of the BNSS, 2023, in matters relating to seizure, confiscation and provisional release of goods under the said Act, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed that Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for seizure of goods, documents and things which are liable to be confiscated under the said Act, while Section 110A provides for release of the seized goods, documents and things pending adjudication. The Court further noted that Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962 specifies the officers by whom confiscation or penalty may be adjudged in cases falling under Chapter-XIV of the Act, and Section 122A lays down the procedure for such adjudication. The Court also observed that Chapter-XVI of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with offences and prosecution, with various offences being defined under Sections 132 to 136 of the Act.
Importantly, the Court noted that Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs is required before cognizance of an offence under Section 135 (and certain other offences) can be taken by the Court. The Court observed that out of the various sections quoted in the complaint filed by the DRI, namely Sections 7(1), 11, 104, 110, 112 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, only Section 135 pertains to an offence under the said Act, and for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 135, previous sanction of the appropriate authority is mandatory.
The Court further observed that in the instant case, no previous sanction order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs was on record, and no specific order regarding taking of cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, was also on record. The Court also took note of the fact that the proper officer empowered to dispose of goods seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, in cases where such goods are perishable or hazardous in nature, would be an officer having the power to adjudicate the matter regarding confiscation and imposition of penalty under Section 122 of the Act, which in the instant case would be the Commissioner of Customs.
The Court further observed that since the seized areca nuts were not produced before the regular criminal court after such seizure, the powers under Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023 could not have been exercised by the regular criminal court.
Briefly, On 19 Dec 2025, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Dimapur, received credible intelligence that trucks carrying smuggled foreign-origin areca nuts were being transported from Manipur to Dimapur and were likely to arrive in the early hours of the following day. Acting on this tip-off, a surveillance team was stationed at Kukidolong on the National Highway leading towards Dimapur. At around 7 a.m. on 20 Dec 2025, two trucks were intercepted by the DRI officials. Upon interrogation of the drivers and subsequent search, the trucks were found to be carrying 570 bags of areca nuts weighing approximately 45,600 kg, with an estimated value of Rs. 3.19 crores.
The drivers produced a transit pass purportedly issued by the Forest Department, Phek Division, Government of Nagaland, but on examination, the transit pass was found to pertain to only 25,000 kg of areca nuts, whereas the actual quantity recovered was 45,600 kg. Suspecting the goods to be smuggled and of foreign origin, liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, the DRI officials seized the areca nuts along with the trucks and other items under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and arrested the persons from whose possession the goods were recovered.
Also read Green Clauses, Grey Areas: When Sustainability Becomes a Construction Contract Risk
Subsequently, on 21 December 2025, the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Dimapur, filed a complaint under Sections 7(1), 11, 104, 110, 112 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 against two accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, on the basis of which a case was registered. In the meantime, respondent No. 2, Shri Kiyeto Zhimomi, approached the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur, claiming ownership of the seized areca nuts and praying for release on zimma. Later, the Sessions Judge directed release of the 570 bags of areca nuts to respondent No. 2 on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10 lakhs along with surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
Respondent No. 2 contended that he had purchased the seized areca nuts from M/s Zamzam Traders, who had in turn purchased the same in a public auction conducted by the Government of Manipur after the goods were earlier seized and confiscated as Burmese-origin non-edible supari, and that proper transit passes had been issued by both the Governments of Manipur and Nagaland. It was further brought on record that no previous sanction order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs was on record, and no specific order regarding taking of cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, was also on record.
