DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. ISHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.1999 of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi returning the complaint u/s 135 of the CUSTOMS ACT, 1962. The brief facts leading to the revision may be stated as under: On 25.12.1996, at Bahraich, U.P., the officers of the petitioner, i.e., Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a Maruti Gypsy bearing No.DL-8C-2295 with two occupants, viz., the accused Iswar Singh & Lucky Misra. On preliminary enquiries it was discovered that the contraband goods were being carried in the vehicle. The DRI officers escorted the vehicle and the accused to the CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and 531 foreign marked gold biscuits of total value of Rs.3,13,42,000/- were recovered from them. The accused were eventually challaned u/s 135 of the CUSTOMS ACT, 1962. At the time of framing of charge the accused moved an application for dismissal of the complaint and for discharge of the accused on the ground that the court of ACMM lacked the territorial jurisdiction. The application was disposed of by the impugned order. Relying upon a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kanwarjit Singh vs. UOI 1994 (1) Crimes 255, the ACMM held that she had no jurisdiction to try the accused and directed the return of the complaint.

(2.) 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, 1962 was complete. The interception of the vehicle was done on reliable information and as soon as the truck was intercepted, the offence should be deemed to have been complete. Can the DRI thereafter take the vehicle 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, 1962. 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'.

(3.) 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 vehicle was 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 in Bahraich (U.P.) itself and the intended consequences actually did not ensue.