9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 978 - HC - CustomsConviction under the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act 1962 - Rejection of regular bail - Whether the Metropolitan Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the bail application but for by the learned Special Judge-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge which is designated as Special Court known as Special Judge for Trial of Economic Offences more particularly by sitting against the dismissal order by the Special Judge or otherwise once bail application is filed before the Special Judge and disposed off and if so the impugned order of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside with what observations and consequences. Held that - Criminal Procedure Code on the adjectival and procedural provisions equally apply not only for the Indian Penal Code offences but also for other offences; leave about even in investigating inquiring or trying into I.P.C. offences and other offences together but for to the extent saved by the said provisions of any other law to prevail to say the Cr. P.C. provisions are in that area general law to the extent special provisions covered those prevail and in the other areas the Cr. P.C. to apply. - It is also important to say from the designation of the Special Judge for Trial of Economic Offences as Special Judge for Trial of Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge which is located at Nampally in Hyderabad it is part of the Court of Sessions also being the VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge of the Metropolitan Sessions Division of Hyderabad headed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. The Metropolitan Sessions Division thereby includes Metropolitan Sessions Judge Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrates and Metropolitan Magistrates as the case may be which are part of the Division from the combined reading of Sections 6 to take him to custody and move for regular bail afresh to entertain by the learned Special Judge to hear and decide including as to whether the offences are bailable or non-bailable with reference to the expression of the Apex Court in Omprakash (2011 (9) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and in granting bail is with necessary conditions like execution of self bond with sureties furnishing of full and correct address with proof with bank account particulars surrender of passport attending to the investigation assurance of availability and securing his presence before Court non-interefence with witnesses particularly of the mediators to the panchnama and the like. - Petition disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge to grant bail. 2. Validity of the bail order granted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. 3. Legal implications of the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 on the jurisdiction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences. 4. Interpretation of Sections 9A, 19, and 20 of the Central Excise Act and Sections 103 and 104 of the Customs Act regarding bailability of offences. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge to Grant Bail Contentions of the Petitioner: - The petitioner argued that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the bail application after it was dismissed by the Special Judge for Trial of Economic Offences. - The petitioner cited G.O. Rt. No. 734, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 13-3-1981, and subsequent circulars and judicial pronouncements to support this contention. - It was emphasized that the Special Judge for Economic Offences is the only competent authority to entertain bail applications for offences under the specified Central Acts. Contentions of the Respondent: - The respondent contended that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge was right in granting bail under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., citing the Apex Court's judgment in Omprakash and Another v. Union of India and Another, which held that offences under the Customs Act are bailable. Court's Analysis: - The court examined Sections 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Cr. P.C., which outline the jurisdiction and hierarchy of criminal courts. - The court noted that the Special Judge for Economic Offences, designated as the VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, is part of the Metropolitan Sessions Division of Hyderabad, and thus, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge lacks jurisdiction over cases designated to the Special Judge. - The court referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014, and clarified that the existing jurisdiction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences remains valid until new notifications are issued for the bifurcated states. Issue 2: Validity of the Bail Order Granted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court's Conclusion: - The court concluded that the Metropolitan Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to grant bail in this case, rendering the bail order dated 23-4-2014, in Crl. M.P. No. 1464 of 2014, unsustainable. - The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to stay the cancellation of bail for one week to allow the respondent to surrender before the Special Judge for Economic Offences and move for regular bail afresh. Issue 3: Legal Implications of the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 Court's Observation: - The court observed that the bifurcation of the state necessitates the re-designation of special courts for the newly formed states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. - Until such re-designation, the existing jurisdiction of the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad continues to hold for cases arising before the bifurcation. Issue 4: Interpretation of Sections 9A, 19, and 20 of the Central Excise Act and Sections 103 and 104 of the Customs Act Court's Reference: - The court referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Omprakash and Another v. Union of India and Another, which held that offences under the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act are bailable. - The court directed the Special Judge for Economic Offences to consider this interpretation while entertaining the fresh bail application of the respondent. Conclusion: The Criminal Petition is allowed, and the bail order granted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge is set aside. The respondent is directed to surrender before the Special Judge for Economic Offences within one week and move for regular bail afresh, which the Special Judge shall entertain and decide, considering the bailability of the offences as per the Apex Court's judgment.
|
