Directorate Of Revenue ... vs Jagdish Raj And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 543 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 26.6.2002 whereby the learned ACMM, New Delhi held that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case against the present respondents under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and directed that the complaint be returned in original to the complainant/petitioner. The prayer in the revision petition is to reverse the order to hold that the courts in Delhi had the jurisdiction to try the respondents for offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act.

2. The facts leading to the present petition are as under:

The petitioner/DRI filed a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the respondents in the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short `ACMM') on 17.3.1989. The facts disclosed in the complaint were that on 17.7.1988 to around 1600 hours the officers of the DRI intercepted a truck bearing No.HNX-1255 at Matheri on Ambala-Hissar road and the truck loaded with cargo along with the occupants, namely, the accused Jagdish Raj @ Disha (driver) and Kuk Singh (cleaner) were escorted to the office of the DRI at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi where the truck was searched as a result of which 274 gold biscuits with foreign markings of the value of Rs.98,95,510/- were recovered. The two accused failed to give any satisfactory explanation of being in possession of the gold biscuits. The DRI, therefore, confiscated the gold biscuits as being smuggled and challaned the two accused and the other respondents. The challan was presented before the ACMM, New Delhi. The other respondents apart from the two mentioned above were arrested subsequently on further recoveries being made from truck bearing No.DIL-3523 which was also intercepted at Matheri and another truck bearing No.DIL-2779 which was intercepted at Kurukshetra (Haryana). The respondents, who were challaned under Section 135 of the Customs Act before the ACMM Delhi, moved an application for discharge on 7.8.2001 on the ground that ACMM did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. By the impugned order the learned ACMM, following the judgment in the case of Kanwarjit Singh v. Union of India reported as 1994 (1) Crimes 255, held that he lacked territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter as the trucks in question had been intercepted at places outside Delhi and that the offence should be deemed to have been committed at places outside Delhi. The trucks were admittedly intercepted on information. The learned ACMM found that the trucks were intercepted in Haryana but they were escorted to Delhi at the CGO Complex but that would not confer any territorial jurisdiction in courts in Delhi. The question was sufficiently gone into by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Kanwarjit Singh (Supra). The learned trial court instead of discharging the respondents considered it proper to return the complaint to the complainant with liberty to present the complaint before the appropriate court.

3. The question that arises in this case is whether the offence was committed in Delhi or outside Delhi?

4. The DRI represented by Mr. Satish Agarwal, reiterates that since the actual search and seizure took place in Delhi, the offence should be deemed to have taken place in Delhi. It is not possible to agree with such a proposition. When the vehicle was intercepted and preliminary enquiries were made and it came to the knowledge of the DRI officers that the vehicle was carrying contraband, viz., foreign marked gold, the offence u/s 135 of the Customs Act was complete. The interception of the vehicles were doe on reliable information and as soon as the trucks were intercepted, the offence should be deemed to have been complete. Can the DRI thereafter take the vehicles to some other station, Delhi or beyond, and say that the offence had taken place where the search and seizure was made? It took the DRI several hours to drive down to Delhi. The search could have taken place immediately on interception. The DRI was entitled to the aid of local police authorities who were obliged to give their assistance u/s 151 of the Customs Act. In case it was not safe to search in the highway, the nearest police station could be used for the purpose. Can it be said that Delhi courts will have jurisdiction because the DRI officers opted to bring the accused and the vehicle to Delhi and carry out the search operation in Delhi? The answer is clearly `No'.

5. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that every offence should be ordinarily tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In the present case the offence can be said to have been committed outside Delhi. Mr. Satish Agarwal, however, says that the case falls under Section 179 Cr.P.C. which provides that when an act is offence by reason of anything which has been done and of which consequence has ensued, the offence may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. It is stated that vehicles were Delhi bound and the contraband would have been sold in Delhi, the case could be tried at Delhi. This argument cannot be accepted because the effort to transport the contraband to Delhi was aborted outside Delhi at Matheri and Kurukshetra itself and the intended consequences actually did not ensue.

6. Thus the opinion of the trial court dated 26.6.2002 cannot be faulted. The complaint having been filed in court not having jurisdiction, the appropriate order required to be passed was u/s 201 Cr.P.C. This is what the ACMM has done by returning the complaint to DRI.

7. The revision has no merit and is hence dismissed.