9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest and trial under the Sea Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 2. Validity of the Notification appointing a Special Judicial Magistrate. 3. Alleged infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Jurisdiction and venue of the trial. 5. Alleged discrimination in trial and appeal process. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Arrest and Trial under the Sea Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act: The petitioners were arrested for their involvement in a conspiracy to smuggle gold into India, violating the Sea Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The Government of Maharashtra gave written consent for criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 196-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A complaint was instituted alleging that the petitioners were part of a conspiracy to smuggle gold and evade customs duty and regulations. The petitioners sought to be tried at Deogad or Ratnagiri, citing convenience and their permanent residence in Deogad. The Special Magistrate and the High Court rejected their application for transfer. 2. Validity of the Notification Appointing a Special Judicial Magistrate: The Government of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appointing Mr. V. M. Gehani as a Special Judicial Magistrate with jurisdiction over Greater Bombay and Ratnagiri District. The petitioners challenged the notification, arguing that it infringed Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the State Government was competent to appoint a Special Magistrate with jurisdiction over a specified local area, including Greater Bombay and Ratnagiri District, and to confer upon him the powers of a Presidency Magistrate. 3. Alleged Infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution: The petitioners argued that Section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Bombay Act 23 of 1951, and the notification appointing Mr. Gehani as Special Judicial Magistrate, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court referred to the case of M. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, where it was held that the law vesting discretion in an authority to appoint a Special Magistrate under Section 14 was not discriminatory and did not violate Article 14. The court found no substantial difference between the original and amended Section 14 that would render it unconstitutional. 4. Jurisdiction and Venue of the Trial: The petitioners contended that the trial should be held in Deogad or Ratnagiri for convenience. The court noted that the Special Magistrate had jurisdiction over both Greater Bombay and Ratnagiri District. There was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring a Magistrate to hold sittings at a particular place. The court emphasized that the petitioners had already sought relief from the High Court of Bombay, which was denied. The trial's venue was within the discretion of the Special Magistrate, and the notification did not specify the place of sittings. 5. Alleged Discrimination in Trial and Appeal Process: The petitioners claimed that the notification resulted in discrimination, as they would have to travel to Bombay for the trial, unlike others who would be tried locally. The court observed that the charge involved a conspiracy spanning multiple locations, including Bombay. The appointment of a Special Magistrate with jurisdiction over both areas was justified. The court also addressed the petitioners' concern about the appeal process, noting that an appeal from a Presidency Magistrate's conviction would lie directly to the High Court, which could be advantageous. The difference in appeal venues arose from the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Magistrate and not from any discriminatory practice. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the notification appointing Mr. Gehani as Special Judicial Magistrate and finding no infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. The trial's venue and the appeal process were deemed lawful and non-discriminatory.
|
