2005 (3) TMI 139 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the ACMM in taking cognizance of the offence committed at Kundli within the State of Haryana.
2. Compliance with the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court regarding the defect in jurisdiction.
3. Correct legal procedure to be followed when a court is not competent to take cognizance of an offence.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the ACMM in a case involving the interception of a truck carrying gold biscuits. The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the ACMM in Delhi did not have jurisdiction over the offence committed at Kundli in Haryana. This led to the dismissal of warrants against the accused, who were discharged based on this jurisdictional issue.

2. The ACMM was criticized for not properly appreciating the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and for dismissing the application of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The respondents argued that the High Court's judgment had become final after the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. However, it was highlighted that the High Court's judgment only addressed the jurisdictional defect and did not determine the innocence or guilt of the accused.

3. The legal procedure to be followed in such cases was discussed, citing Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section mandates that if a complaint is filed in a court not competent to take cognizance, it should be returned for presentation to the proper court. The ACMM was directed to comply with this provision and return the complaint for presentation before the appropriate forum for trial.

4. The judgment emphasized that the respondents should not escape prosecution due to a procedural mistake in presenting the complaint in the correct forum. It was clarified that the order dropping the proceedings should be treated as an order of return of the complaint under Section 201 of the Code, allowing the petitioner to present the complaint at the appropriate court for trial.

5. Ultimately, the successor ACMM was directed to return the original complaint with relevant documents to the petitioner, ensuring compliance with the legal procedure and the High Court's judgment regarding jurisdiction. The revision petition was disposed of with these directions, ensuring that the case proceeds in the proper forum with jurisdiction.