ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) AT the request of the learned Counsel for both the parties, these applications are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE accused in these matters are charged with the offences under sec. 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegation in the said customs case is that on 30-9-1992, these accused persons were arrested in connection with 150 gold biscuits of foreign mark which were brought in a ship being msv YA-AL-RAZAK-BDI 777. The accused persons were produced on 4- 10-1992 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj. Since the complaint was not filed within the time prescribed by the provisions of sec. 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners claimed to be released on bail as a matter of right by making an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj being Miscellaneous Criminal application No. 23 of 1993. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, took note of all the legal contentions raised on behalf of these petitioners as also the merits of the matter and held that the provisions of Sec. 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be attracted in the instant case, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mohindar Pal Singh v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in 1990 0 Crlr 444. It was noticed that the petitioners were prima facie involved in a grave offence inasmuch as they were found in possession of 150 gold biscuits, of foreign make, of the value of Rs. 72,40,860. 00. The statements given by these persons before the Customs Authority and other material convinced the learned additional Sessions Judge about the gravity of the offence and he passed the order dated 20-1-1993 rejecting the application which was jointly made by both these persons. ( 3 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the principles underlying the provisions of Sec. 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code had to be borne in mind and when the Customs Department did not file a complaint within the period mentioned in the proviso a (ii) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, both the accused ought to have been released on bail. Reliance was sought to be placed on the decision of this Court rendered on 8-6-1992 in Miscellaneous Criminal application Nos. (2) of Sec. 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, both the accused ought to have been released on bail. Reliance was sought to be placed on the decision of this Court rendered on 8-6-1992 in Miscellaneous Criminal application Nos. 600 to 604 of 1983 in support of the submission that the principles underlying Sec. 167 (2) were applicable in the instant case. It was submitted that this decision was not brought to the notice of the division Bench in Mohindar Pal Singhs case (supra) and the ratio of the decision in Mohindar Pal Singhs case that the provisions of Sec. 167 (2) of the Code had no application when a person accused of having committed a criminal offence is arrested and produced before the Magistrate under sec. 104 of the Customs Act was in conflict with the said earlier decision in Miscellaneous Criminal Application Nos. 600 to 604 of 1983. A copy of that decision was referred to during the course of his arguments by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that in view of the conflict between these two judgments, the matter can be referred to the Full Bench for consideration. ( 4 ) ON going through these two Division Bench decisions of this Court, it is clear that there is absolutely no conflict between them. In the earlier decision, rendered on 8-6-1992 by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B. K. Mehta and R. C. Mankad, JJ.) the Court while considering the question in a batch of petitions, as to whether the provisions of Sec. 167 (2) of the Code were applicable in respect of the investigations made under the Customs Act, held as under-". . . WE find it difficult that Sec. 167 (2) together with the proviso would apply in terms to the cases of persons brought before the Magistrate after their arrest for having committed offence under the Customs Act. " The Court then proceeded to hold that the Courts cannot afford to brush aside the principles underlying Secs. 167 and 437 of the Code pertaining to the right of the accused to be released on bail. " The Court then proceeded to hold that the Courts cannot afford to brush aside the principles underlying Secs. 167 and 437 of the Code pertaining to the right of the accused to be released on bail. It was observed that the Courts must bear in mind perspective of these provisions while exercising their powers to remand persons accused of having committed offences and brought before them either under Special Act or under the Code and exercise their powers to release them on bail or otherwise according to the correct legal principles. It was then observed as follows : "we do not mean to say that the Courts in context of these Special Acts must mechanically apply a straight jacket formula as to prescribed period without relevant considerations such as gravity of the offence, the complexity of investigation, the modus operandi of the persons involved in such nefarious activities, the dilatory tactics adopted by such persons and the other relevant and attendant circumstances and other special grounds prima facie established by the officer making the investigation and the Courts should pass appropriate orders in that behalf if the special reasons and the interests of justice required detention or the continuation of trial beyond the specified period as prescribed in the aforesaid provisions of the code. "the Division Bench found that the learned single Judge had not considered the problem from these angles and therefore, the matter was referred back for a fresh consideration. It will be noticed that the Division Bench in terms held that the provisions of Sec. 167 (2) were not applicable to the investigations made under the Customs Act. The latter decision of this Court in Mohindar pal Singhs case (supra) directly dealt with the issue involved in the present petitions. While construing the provisions of Sec. 104 of the Customs Act and sec. 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code and after considering relevant authorities on the subject, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that when a person is suspected of having committed a customs offence and is arrested and produced by the Customs Officer before a Magistrate under Sec. 104 of the Customs Act, he is not forwarded to the Magistrate under Sec. 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code at all but he is taken to the Magistrate under sec. 104 of the Customs Act. 104 of the Customs Act. At that stage, there is no F. I. R. , no complaint and no cognizance and therefore, the person is not an accused and Sec. 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has no application. When Sec. 167 (2) applies only to the Police Officers producing an accused of a cognizable and nonbailable offence, it will be too much to extend it to a Customs Officer producing an accused suspected of commission of a non-cognizable customs offence. The Magistrate, when he sends such customs offender to a judicial custody, is not, while doing so, functioning under the provisions of Sec. 167 (2), but he is exercising his power to refuse bail and take him into his custody, namely, the judicial custody. It would be at once clear from the reading of the decision in Mohindar Pal Singhs case that it is in no way in conflict with the ratio of the decision of the earlier decision rendered in Miscellaneous Criminal Application Nos. 600 to 604 of 1983. In fact, the earlier decision of the Division Bench clearly contemplated cases where the period specified under Sec. 167 (2) of the Code did not apply and for valid reasons a person in respect of whom investigations have been carried out under the special laws, could be kept in custody beyond such period. There is, therefore, absolutely no need to refer the matter for consideration by a larger bench of this Court, It is obvious on the reading of Sec. 167 that the proviso to sub-sec. (2) would be attracted only where an accused person arrested and detained in custody is forwarded to the Magistrate by an officer in-charge of the Police Station or the Police Officer during the course of investigation under Chapter xii of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Customs Officer who is not such Police Officer produces the person arrested for a non-cognizable offence under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act before a Magistrate under sec. 104 (2) of the Customs Act and the provisions of Sec. 167 of the code will not be attracted when such person is produced before the magistrate by a Customs Officer. The Customs Officer who is not such Police Officer produces the person arrested for a non-cognizable offence under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act before a Magistrate under sec. 104 (2) of the Customs Act and the provisions of Sec. 167 of the code will not be attracted when such person is produced before the magistrate by a Customs Officer. Therefore, the person arrested for an offence under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act is not entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right on expiry of sixty days under Sec. 167 (2) of the Code which cannot be invoked in such cases. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, then addressed the Court on the merits of the case and submitted that the petitioner ibrahim Osmal Jasraya was a "tandel" and the petitioner Mamad Abbas jasraya was only a member of the crew and therefore, they were not real Kingpins behind the offence and ought to be leniently viewed. I have given my anxious consideration to all the relevant aspects of the matter and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the modus operand. of the nefarious activities in question and the complexity of the investigation involved in such matters, I am of the view that this is not fit case for enlarging the petitioners on bail and there is absolutely no need to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Additional sessions Judge while rejecting the bail applications of these two persons. Both these petitions are, therefore, rejected. .