2012 (7) TMI 1121 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Delay in Raising Jurisdictional Objection
3. Merits of Jurisdictional Claim
4. Application of Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C.

Summary:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), challenged the order dated 8.12.2003 by the learned ACMM, New Delhi, which discharged the accused due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The ACMM relied on the judgment in Kanwarjit Singh vs. Union of India, where the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the Delhi Court did not have jurisdiction as the offence was committed in Haryana.

2. Delay in Raising Jurisdictional Objection:
The DRI argued that the application for discharge was barred as it was filed after 12 years from the date of taking cognizance. The ACMM failed to consider that the accused had participated in the proceedings for 12 years before raising the jurisdictional objection, which should have been raised at the threshold.

3. Merits of Jurisdictional Claim:
The DRI contended that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction because the substantial actions constituting the offence, such as the search, seizure, and preparation of panchnama, were conducted in Delhi. The ACMM erred in not recognizing the difference between the Panipat case and the present case, where the jurisdictional question was raised after a significant delay.

4. Application of Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C.:
The ACMM incorrectly applied Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. to discharge the accused for lack of jurisdiction. The court should have examined whether the charges were groundless, which was not done. The law under Sections 460 and 462 Cr.P.C. indicates that proceedings are not vitiated by lack of jurisdiction unless serious prejudice is shown. The ACMM's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court to proceed from where it had discharged the accused.

Conclusion:
The order of the learned ACMM dated 8.12.2003 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court. The parties were directed to appear before the learned ACMM on 31st July, 2012.