B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT application is filed against the order dt. 17 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Kutch at Bhuj in Criminal Revision Application No. 54 of 1987. The learned Session Judge has delivered common judgment in three Criminal Revision Applications being Cri. Rev. Applications No. 54 55 and 56 of 1987. The said three revision applications were by the Asst. Collector of Customs Bhuj against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhuj on 2-9-1987 in an application filed by the Asst. Collector of Customs Bhuj on 31-8-1987. The said application was rejected on the ground that the work to be done under the amended provisions of the Customs Act can be done by the Executive Magistrates or Sub-Divisional Magistrates and therefore that work should be assigned to them and not to the Magistrates doing Judicial work. Against the aforesaid order revision application was filed but the same has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) ON perusal of Sec. 110 of the Customs Act 1962 it is clear that it deals with seizure of goods etc. By the recent amendment in Sec. 110 of the said Act Secs. 110 (1a) (1b) and (1c) are inserted. Mrs. Mehta raises the contention that whenever an application is made under sub sec. (1c) of Sec. 110 the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. In other words whenever such an application is made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for doing the would contemplated under Sec. 110 (1b) he should grant it by assigning the Judicial Magistrate for that work. In order to properly appreciate the contention it is necessary to reproduce the amended sub-sections which read as under:" (1a) The Central Government may having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time constraints of storage page for the goods or any other relevant considerations by notification in the Official Gazette specify the goods or class of goods which shall as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-sec (1) be disposed of by the proper Officer in such manner as the Central GOvernment may from time to time determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (1b) Where any goods being goods specified under sub-sec (1a) having been seized by a proper Officer under sub-sec (1) he shall prepare an inventory of such goods containing such details relating to their description quality quantity mark numbers country of origin and other particulars as the proper Officer may consider relevant to the identity of the goods in any proceeding under this Act and shall mike an application to a Magistrate for the purpose of : (A)CERTIFYING the correctness of the inventory so as prepared or (B) taking in the presence of the Magistrate photographs of such good and certifying such photographs as true; or (C) allowing to draw representative sample of such goods in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (IC) Where an application is made under sub-sec (1b) the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application"on perusal of said sub-sec. (1a) it is clear that the Central Government has authority to specify the goods or class of goods which can be disposed of after its seizure by proper officer and in the manner which may be determined from time to time after following the procedure specified in sub-sec. (1b) of Sec. 110. ( 3 ) FOR properly identify the goods it is necessary to make inventory of such goods containing such details relating to their description quality quantity mark numbers country of origin and other particulars as the proper Officer may consider relevant to the identity of the goods and for the purpose of ascertaining as to what is stated in the said inventory is correct the inventory is to be made in the presence of Magistrate and for that purpose an application is to be made for (i) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared (ii) taking in the presence of the Magistrate photographs of such goods and certifying such photographs as true and (iii) allowing to draw representative sample of such goods in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. ( 4 ) ONE of the reasons given by the learned Magistrate is that the aforesaid duties cannot be said to judicial duties which a Judicial Magistrate has to perform. ( 4 ) ONE of the reasons given by the learned Magistrate is that the aforesaid duties cannot be said to judicial duties which a Judicial Magistrate has to perform. As these duties are in the nature of either executive or administrative one the Judicial Magistrate should not be entrusted with such work because such work can be discharged by the Executive Magistrates or Sub-Divisional Magistrates It is therefore necessary to see as to whether any definition of the term Magistrate is given in the Customs Act. In the Customs Act no such definition of the term Magistrate is given but in Sec. 3 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code it is provided as under:"4 Where under any law other than this Code the function exercisable by a Magistrate relates matters: (A)WHICH invoke the appreciation or sifting of evidence or the formulation of any decision which exposes any person to any punishment or penalty or detention in custody pending investigation inquiry or trial or would have the effect of sending him for trial before any court they shall subject to the provisions of this Code be exercisable by a Judicial Magistrate; or (B) which are administrative or executive in nature such as the granting of a licence the suspension or concellation of licence sanctioning a prosecution or withdrawing from a prosecution they shall subject as aforesaid he exercisable by an Executive Magistrate. "it is therefore clear that the functions to be performed by the Magistrate under sub-sec (1b) of Sec 110 of the Customs Act would not involve any appreciation or sifting of evidence which expose any person to any punishment or penalty or detention to custody pending investigation inquiry or trial or could have the effect of sending him for trial before any Court. In that view of the matter those functions cannot be said to be the functions to be discharged by Judicial Magistrates. Functions described in sub-sec. (1b) of Sec. 110 of the Customs Act are either executive or administrative nature and therefore they are exercisable by the Executive Magistrates. Further Judicial Magistrates are so much over-burdened with the pending criminal matters in Courts that it is not desirable to put any further additional burden of executive work. Functions described in sub-sec. (1b) of Sec. 110 of the Customs Act are either executive or administrative nature and therefore they are exercisable by the Executive Magistrates. Further Judicial Magistrates are so much over-burdened with the pending criminal matters in Courts that it is not desirable to put any further additional burden of executive work. It is also not desirable in the interests of justice that such matters be assigned to the Judicial Magistrate for the additional reason that ultimately when criminal complaints are filed for the offence under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act such complaints are also filed before the Judicial Magistrates. If they are assigned such work those Magistrates who have done work under Secs. 110 (1b) cannot try such cases and hence there will be embarrassment which would require transfer of such cases to other Magistrates. ( 5 ) IN view of the above discussion the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and accepted by the learned Sessions Judge is correct and therefore the Assistant Collector of Customs should make such application before the Executive Magistrate. ( 6 ) IN result I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Courts below. The Misc. Criminal Application therefore fails and stands dismissed. Rule discharged. .