TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. If the Custom Department had any grievance against the orders dated 29th September, 2006 and 13th October, 2006, then the appropriate remedy was to file appeal/revision. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not lie, since there is no abuse of process of any Court. Hence, the present petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. is without any legal substance and it is dismissed with costs of ₹ 5,000/-. - 136 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2007 - V.B. Gupta, J. [Judgment]. - Department of Customs has filed this Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside orders dated 29th September, 2006 and 13th October, 2006, passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 2. As per case of the petitioner, on 28th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) = AIR 1970 SC 962, (ii) Shri Lachman Singh v. Mahender Singh and Ors. - Crl. Rev. No. 108/87 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.C. Goel on 19-12-88, (iii) M/s. Ishan Research Laboratories (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Shri S.K. Verma, Inspector, Central Excise - Crl. M. No. 1551/2000 in Crl. Rev. No. 308/2000 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Sodhi, (iv) A.N. Lewis and Anr. v. The State - ILR (1974) 1 Delhi, (v) State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. - 2000 Crl. L.J. 4047 (Supreme Court), (vi) The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703, (vii) Manish Dixit and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 1 SC Cases 596, (viii) Samya Sett v. Shambu Sarkar and Anr., 2005 (3) CC Cases (S.C.) 1, (ix) State of West Bengal and Ors. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on 26th April, 2006, an application was moved on behalf of respondent No. 1 for release of the goods. This is factually incorrect, as no such application is on record. 11. In Para 3 of the present petition it has also been stated that on 29th September, 2006, the ACMM has passed the orders that the goods recovered from the personal search, which are not liable to confiscation be released to the accused. This order reads as under :- "Present : Ms. Puja Bhaskar proxy counsel for SPP. Accused no. 1 with counsel Shri Pankaj Gupta, Adv. Accused no. 2 with counsel Shri Anil Adv. I am informed by learned Counsel for the accused no. 2 that only the copy of the complaint has been supplied and copies of the documents annexed with the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reply/arguments on the application for return of the articles. Sd/ ACMM/29-9-2006" 12. Other order which is under challenge in the present proceedings is dated 13th October, 2006 and it reads as under :- "File taken up on the application filed on behalf of the department for recall of the order dated 29th September, 2006. Present : Shri Vikas Gautam proxy for SPP. Heard arguments. The record reveals that the order had been passed in the presence of proxy counsel Ms. Pooja Bhaskar. Under these circumstances, the order for recall is not required. The application is hereby dismissed." 13. So, the record shows that on 26th April, 2006, order was for release of goods which have been seized vide personal search memo which are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of the of the grievance in the Code." 17. In Full Bench decision of this Court in Gopal Das v. State, AIR 1978, Delhi 138, it was held that :- "The High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers at the instance of a party who has a right of appeal or revision but has not availed himself of that right, cannot pass an order directing that a sentence of imprisonment awarded to such a person on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment when he is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment on an earlier conviction shall run concurrently with such previous sentence." 18. Lastly, there is no ambiguity in the order dated 13th October, 2006 passed by learned ACMM, since the order dated 29th September, 2006 has been passed in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|