Criminal Court Cannot Grant Zimma Of Goods Seized Under Customs Act Without Valid Cognizance: Gauhati High Court

1. Background And Procedural History

The Gauhati High Court, in Deputy Director Vs State of Nagaland (Crl. Pet./18/2026, decided on 13/08/2026), examined whether a regular criminal court could order release on zimma of goods seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the absence of valid cognizance of any offence under the Act.

The petition before the High Court was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner (Deputy Director, DRI) sought quashing of the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur in G.R. Case No. 718/2025, which had directed release (zimma) of seized areca nuts to respondent No. 1 on furnishing a bond of Rs.10 lakh with surety.

The matter arose from DRI Seizure No. 02/CL/IMP/ARECA/DRI/DiRU/2025-26, involving interception of two trucks transporting areca nuts, suspected to be of foreign origin and smuggled, and seizure of the consignment under the Customs Act.

The High Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the zimma order of the Sessions Court, and clarified that the jurisdiction to deal with provisional release of such seized goods lies with the Customs authorities under Section 110 and Section 110A of the Customs Act, and not under the general criminal law, unless statutory pre-conditions for cognizance are satisfied.

2. Facts Leading To Seizure

2.1 Interception Of Trucks And Recovery Of Areca Nuts

  • On 19.12.2025, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Dimapur, received specific intelligence that trucks would be transporting smuggled foreign-origin areca nuts from Manipur to Dimapur.
  • Acting on this input, a surveillance team was deployed at Kukidolong on the National Highway towards Dimapur.
  • At around 07:00 hours on 20.12.2025, two trucks bearing Registration Nos. CG-04-JD-5709 and AS-01-FC-7638 were intercepted.
  • On questioning, the drivers disclosed that the trucks were loaded with areca nuts from Ukhrul district, Manipur and destined for Dimapur.
  • On search, the vehicles were found to be carrying 570 bags of areca nuts, weighing about 45,600 kg, with an estimated value of Rs.3,19,52,376/-.

2.2 Mismatch In Transit Passes

  • The drivers produced transit passes said to have been issued by Forest Department, Phek Division, Government of Nagaland.
  • On scrutiny, the transit passes were seen to authorise transport of only 25,000 kg of areca nuts.
  • In contrast, the actual quantity recovered from the trucks was approximately 45,600 kg, significantly exceeding the quantity covered by the transit passes.

2.3 Seizure Under Customs Act

  • Considering:

    • The excess quantity over that mentioned in transit passes, and
    • The intelligence suggesting foreign origin and smuggling,

    the DRI officers formed a reasonable belief that the areca nuts were smuggled goods of foreign origin, liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

  • Accordingly:

    • The 570 bags of areca nuts,
    • The two trucks, and
    • The other recovered items and documents,

    were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act.

  • The persons found in possession were also alleged to be liable for punishment under the Customs Act and were arrested.

  • An investigation under the Customs Act was initiated. The petition recorded that show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act had not yet been issued.

3. Proceedings Before The Sessions Court And Zimma Order

3.1 Application For Release Of Goods

  • Respondent No. 1 claimed to be the owner of the seized areca nuts.
  • He moved the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur, in G.R. Case No. 718/2025, seeking interim custody (zimma) of the seized goods.

3.2 Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2026

  • By order dated 12.03.2026, the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur:

    • Allowed zimma of the 570 bags of areca nuts to respondent No. 1,
    • Subject to furnishing a bond of Rs.10,00,000/- and surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

  • This order became the subject of challenge in the present criminal petition under Section 528 BNSS.

4.