9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 135 of the Customs Act
In this judgment, the High Court of Delhi addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction in a case involving the interception of a vehicle carrying contraband goods. The revision petition was filed against the order of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) returning the complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The key issue was whether the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act should be deemed to have taken place in Delhi where the search and seizure occurred, or in Bahraich, U.P., where the interception initially took place. The Court analyzed the sequence of events leading to the interception of the vehicle in Bahraich, U.P., and the subsequent recovery of foreign marked gold biscuits in Delhi. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers intercepted the vehicle based on reliable information and discovered the contraband goods during preliminary enquiries. The DRI officers then escorted the accused and the vehicle to Delhi, where the actual search and seizure took place. The Court considered whether the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was complete at the time of interception in Bahraich or only upon the search and seizure in Delhi. The Court referred to Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that every offence should be ordinarily tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The DRI argued that the case fell under Section 179 Cr.P.C., which allows for trial in a jurisdiction where the consequences of an act have ensued. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the intended consequences of transporting the contraband to Delhi did not actually ensue as the interception occurred in Bahraich, U.P. Therefore, the Court held that the offence cannot be deemed to have been committed in Delhi. Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision of the trial court to return the complaint to the DRI due to lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the appropriate order in such cases is under Section 201 of the Cr.P.C. The revision petition was dismissed as lacking merit, affirming the ACMM's order regarding jurisdiction in the case.
|
