2016 (5) TMI 1315 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - the alleged smuggled article was intercepted at Ghaziabad, outside the jurisdiction of Delhi Court - whether the accused could be prosecuted at Delhi? - Held that - in case the complaint is ordered to be returned to Ghaziabad Court, it will be difficult for them to pursue the proceedings, as such, counsel submits that the matter be remanded back to the Trial Court where necessary submissions will be made - The matter is remanded back to ACMM, New Delhi who will decide the same after considering the rival submissions - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdictional challenge based on lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of valid sanction for prosecution under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
1. Lack of Valid Sanction for Prosecution: The prosecution case involved the interception of two accused individuals with goods suspected of being involved in fraudulent evasion of import prohibition. The Trial Court acquitted the accused primarily on two grounds. Firstly, it held that the prosecution failed to prove the mandatory requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court relied on the case of Doki Sriramulu v. Assistant Collector of C.E & Co., emphasizing the necessity of proving the authority granting the sanction and the awareness of the facts of the case by the sanctioning authority. The defense argued that there was a valid and legally accepted sanction for prosecution, which was proven in accordance with the law. It was contended that even if there was a lack of valid sanction, the Court could have dropped the proceedings but not acquitted the respondents solely on that ground.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction Challenge: The second ground for acquittal was the lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the interception of the trucks containing the alleged smuggled goods occurred in Ghaziabad, outside the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. The defense argued that if the Trial Court believed there was a lack of territorial jurisdiction, the appropriate action would have been to return the complaint rather than acquitting the respondents. Counsel for the appellant contended that the Delhi Courts had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and any objection on territorial grounds should have been raised earlier in the proceedings. The defense further highlighted that the respondents, being senior citizens and residents of Bihar, would face difficulties if the case was transferred to Ghaziabad.

3. Remand and Disposition: The High Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 20-4-2010 and remanded the matter back to the ACMM, New Delhi for reconsideration. The Court directed the ACMM to decide the case after considering the submissions of both counsels, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the matter within three months from the date of the order. The Trial Court record, along with a copy of the judgment, was to be sent back immediately for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the crucial issues of lack of valid sanction for prosecution under the Customs Act and the challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction. The High Court's decision to remand the case for reconsideration aimed at ensuring a fair and expeditious resolution while balancing the interests of all parties involved.