Page 93 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] SUNIL PURSHOTTAM MOHATTA v. STATE OF GUJARAT 315

Strictures against Police Department - Indisputably, the bonded ware-
house was under the control and supervision of the Customs Department and
the Central Government only - Police was not authorized to carry out any
search & seizure procedure except requesting for the same to the Department
or to the Central Government - Procedure undertaken by police is beyond its
control and that is proved unhealthy for the smooth administration of the State
Government and the Central Government - Director General of Police is there-
fore required to attend such sort of acts committed by the police and shall take
up such issue before the Customs Department and Central Government as to
whether the police should indulge into such activity or not - Issue in question
pertaining to two Governmental Departments i.e. Police Department on one
hand and the Customs Department on the other hand - Instead of trying to es-
tablish supremacy over the issue in question by one or the other Department,
issue could have been sorted out by the Heads of both the authorities that un-
der whose jurisdiction, the issue falls for consideration. [paras 6, 7]
Applications allowed
CASE CITED
Hotel Ashoka v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes — 2012 (276) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)
— Referred ..................................................................................................................................... [Para 4.3]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri N.D. Nanavaty, Senior Advocate with Jaivik
Bhatt, Advocate for Nanavaty Advocates, for the
Appellant.
Shri Ronak Raval, APP, for the Respondent.
[Order (Common) (Oral)]. - The applicant in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 13841 of 2012 is the licensee of the bonded warehouse situated at Gandhi-
dham-Kutch, whereas the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14654 of
2012 are the officials of the Customs Department.
2. The applicants have preferred the present applications under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the First Infor-
mation Report being C.R. No. II - 5449 of 2012 registered with Gandhidham “A”
Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 66(l)(b), 65(a)(e)
and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
3. In the impugned F.I.R., it is inter alia alleged that the applicant of
Criminal Misc. Application No. 13841 of 2012 and the applicants - officials of the
Customs Department of Criminal Misc. Application No. 14654 of 2012, have in
collusion with each other, imported foreign brand liquor and beer without pass-
permit for the stock of 80,392 bottles of foreign brand liquor valued at Rs.
10,29,60,470/- and the stock of 1,46,336 bottles of beer valued at Rs. 60,57,400/-,
totaling to Rs. 10,90,17,870/- for the purpose of sale. Thereby, the applicants
committed an offence punishable under Sections 66(l)(b), 65(a)(e) and 81 of the
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
4. Heard Learned Senior advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty assisted by
Learned Advocate Mr. Jaivik Bhatt for Nanavaty Advocates for the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 13841 of 2012, Learned Advocate Mr. Ankit Shah
for the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14654 of 2012 and Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent - State of Guja-
rat.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  93