9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Pradeep Jain and Sidharth Joshi, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Satish Agarwala with Ms. Pooja Bhaskar, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. - These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") challenges an order dated 17th December, 2003 passed by the learned the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi ("ACMM") in a Criminal Complaint titled Shri D.V. Parashar, Intelligence Officer v. M/s. Baron International Limited and Others under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 ("Act"). The petitions also challenge a subsequent order dated 6th July, 2004 passed by the learned MM directing service of summons by publication. The prayer for quashing of the criminal complaint has not been pressed during the arguments. 2. M/s. Baron International Limited ('BIL'), a company registered in Mumbai, was at the relevant time marketing Akai Brand Colour Television sets. BIL entered into a contract with M/s. Akai Limited, Japan and Akai Electronic Corporation, Japan whereby the rebate would be paid to BIL based on the sales volume for the specific period. According to the complaint, information was received by the Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "17-12-2003 Present : SPP along with complainant. Fresh complaint presented. It be checked and registered. Photocopy of documents also been filed along with the complaint. Ahlmad is directed to check the documents as per index attached with these documents. An application for exemption of personal appearance of complainant and for dispensing of recording of the preliminary evidence is also moved along with this complaint. As this complaint is filed by a public servant in discharge of his public duty hence recording of preliminary evidence is dispensed with. Personal attendance of complainant is also dispensed with. Complainant is allowed to be represented through SPP. Complaint and documents perused. Heard. After going through the complaint and the documents and arguments raised before me by learned SPP, I am of the opinion that this stage there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of Customs Act. I take cognizance of offence under Sections 132/135(1)(a) of Customs Act. Issue summons to accused for 22-3-2004 Sd/ ACMM/17.12.2003" 5. Thereafter on 6th July, 2004 the following order was passed: "Present : Proxy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi. He submits that the complaint would have to be returned by the learned ACMM, New Delhi to the Respondent for presentation in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction, which in this case would be at Mumbai. Union of India v. Ram Narain Bishwanath - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 224 (S.C.) = (1998) 9 SCC 285 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Kanwarjit Singh, 2005 VAD (Delhi) 62. 9. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel appearing for the DRI has contended that this petition is premature since the question of territorial jurisdiction can arise only at the stage of enquiry and trial. It is also contended that the Petitioners have filed an application before the learned ACMM, New Delhi raising the issue of territorial jurisdiction and that application is still pending. It is contended by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Trisnus Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal, 1999 Crl LJ 4325 that the absence of territorial jurisdiction to try the matter is not a bar to a criminal court taking cognizance of the complaint. It is further contended that the scope of Sections 177 and 179 CrPC is wide enough to permit the criminal court not having territorial jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts took place will alone be competent to try the criminal case concerning such import. 12. In Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Kanwarjit Singh, 2005 VAD (Delhi) 62 the DRI's officers intercepted a truck at Kundli on the Delhi-Haryana border which was resulted the recovery of 520 gold biscuits worth Rs. 2.12 crores. The question thereafter was whether the court of the learned ACMM, New Delhi would have jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the DRI. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the learned ACMM, New Delhi did not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence committed at Kundli within the State of Haryana. The DRI then moved an application before the learned ACMM, New Delhi for returning the complaint for presentation in the appropriate court. By an order dated 8th December, 1998 the learned ACMM, New Delhi dismissed the application. This Court while setting aside the order of the learned ACMM directed that the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana could only mean that the learned MM, New Delhi had to pass an order under Section 201 CrPC returning the complaint to the complainant for presentation in the appropriate court in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
