9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 488 - HC - CustomsSeeking grant of bail - Smuggling - validity of dropping/dismissing the complaint if the non-bailable warrants could not be executed - offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(1)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The section 82 Cr.P.C. deals with proclamation for the person Absconding. Sub section (1) provides that if any Court has reason to believe that any person, against whom a warrant has been issued by it, has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. Admittedly the accused no.1 i.e. Olga Kozireva in the complaint was admitted to bail but absconded thereafter. The non-bailable warrant has already been issued against the Olga Kozireva but could not be executed. Thereafter the appropriate procedure which was required to be followed by the Trial Court to issue the proclamation against Olga Kozireva for appearance at specified place and at specified time. The Trial Court was not required to drop the proceedings as per the impugned order. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and accordingly set aside. The Trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps further in accordance with law in case the non-bailable warrant received unexecuted due to reason whatsoever. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Impugning order dated 03.07.2010 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 2. Legality of dropping/dismissing proceedings against the accused. 3. Applicability of Section 82 Cr.P.C. in the case. 4. Request for vacating the direction of the Court dated 09.04.2021 for the trial conclusion. Analysis: Issue 1: Impugning the order dated 03.07.2010 The petitioner filed a Revision Petition challenging the order dated 03.07.2010, where the Court of ACMM, New Delhi dropped/dismissed the proceedings against the accused, Olga Kozireva. The petitioner argued that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for dropping/dismissing a complaint if non-bailable warrants could not be executed. The petitioner contended that the Trial Court should have declared Olga Kozireva as a proclaimed offender and issued coercive processes. The impugned order was deemed contrary to the law. Issue 2: Legality of dropping/dismissing proceedings The Trial Court dropped the proceedings against Olga Kozireva on the grounds that her presence could be secured through extradition proceedings and that the non-bailable warrant against her could only be executed through the extradition channel. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Trial Court should not have dropped or dismissed the proceedings if steps for the execution of the non-bailable warrant were not taken. The Court held that the Trial Court was required to issue a proclamation against Olga Kozireva for appearance instead of dropping the proceedings, and the impugned order was set aside. Issue 3: Applicability of Section 82 Cr.P.C. The Court referred to Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with proclamations for absconding persons. The accused, Olga Kozireva, had absconded after being granted bail, and non-bailable warrants were issued but remained unexecuted. The Court held that the Trial Court should have followed the appropriate procedure of issuing a proclamation for Olga Kozireva's appearance instead of dropping the proceedings. Issue 4: Request for vacating the direction of the Court dated 09.04.2021 An application was made to vacate the direction of the Court dated 09.04.2021, which had directed the Trial Court not to pass the final judgment until the disposal of the petition. The application stated that the respondent was facing trial for over 20 years, and the Trial Court was urged to conclude the trial at the earliest on a day-to-day basis. The Court directed that the Trial Court could pass the final judgment after the conclusion of the trial, and efforts should be made to expedite the trial for the respondent. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, addressing the arguments presented and the Court's decisions on each matter.
|
