9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scuits worth Rs. 2.12 crores. After the conclusion of inquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act and completion of investigation a complaint for offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85(1)(a) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was filed. The Respondent No. 1, Kanwarjit Singh, was declared a proclaimed offender on 2-4-1990. During the pendency of the proceedings before the ACMM, New Delhi a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court being Crl. Misc. No. 350/93 was filed which was decided on 20-10-1993 holding therein that the ACMM, New Delhi did not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence committed at Kundli within the State of Haryana. The DRI was restrained from giving effect to the warr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court and that she committed an error in dismissing the application of the DRI. It is contended that the ACMM should have returned the complaint with all documents and annexures for presentation of the same before the court of competent jurisdiction. It is further pointed out that although these two respondents, namely, Kanwarjit Singh and Virsa Singh, were discharged, no orders were made in respect of other accused in the case and the proceedings continued as against them. 4.On behalf of the respondents, the petition is contested. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court has become final on dismissal of the SLP against this judgment in both the matters and nothing more is required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to take cognizance of the offence he shall, - (a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect. (b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court." 7.The ACMM was required to resort to the provisions of Section 201 of the Code which required that a complaint filed in a court not competent to take cognizance has to be returned for presentation to the proper court. Had the ACMM done so, the directions of the Punjab Haryana High Court given in the judgment mentioned above would have been properly complied with. Apart from the directions in the judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court, the Code also required the Magist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
