9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of Delhi courts under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962
Analysis: 1. Jurisdictional Challenge: The revision petition challenged the order stating that the ACMM lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The complaint filed by the petitioner/DRI alleged that on a specific date, officers intercepted a truck carrying gold biscuits. The accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, leading to the confiscation of the gold. Subsequently, other respondents were arrested in connection with the case. The ACMM, following precedent, held that the offence should be deemed to have been committed outside Delhi as the interception occurred in Haryana. The trucks were escorted to Delhi for further proceedings, but this did not confer jurisdiction to Delhi courts. 2. Location of Offence: The key question was whether the offence occurred in Delhi or outside its jurisdiction. The DRI argued that since the search and seizure took place in Delhi, the offence should be deemed to have occurred there. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was complete upon interception of the vehicles carrying contraband. Merely transporting the vehicles to Delhi for search did not alter the jurisdictional analysis. The court highlighted the importance of the actual interception location in determining jurisdiction. 3. Legal Provisions: Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that offences should be tried by a court within the jurisdiction where they were committed. The DRI contended that Section 179 could apply as the vehicles were bound for Delhi, but this argument was rejected. The court clarified that since the intended consequences did not materialize in Delhi and were aborted outside the city, Delhi courts did not have jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the significance of where the offence was initiated and completed in determining the appropriate trial jurisdiction. 4. Court's Decision: The court upheld the trial court's decision that the complaint should be returned to the DRI due to lack of jurisdiction. The revision petition was dismissed on grounds of meritlessness. The judgment reinforced the principle that jurisdiction is determined by where the offence was committed, not merely where the investigation or search took place. The ACMM's order to return the complaint was deemed appropriate under Section 201 of the Cr. P.C. This comprehensive analysis reaffirmed the importance of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases, emphasizing the need for legal proceedings to align with the location of the alleged offence.
|
