DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. JAGDISH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(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(1)(b) 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(l)(b) of the Customs Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition are as under: The petitioner/DRI filed a complaint under Section 135(l)(b) 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 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 challenged 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 Court in Delhi. The question was sufficiently gone into by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Kanwarjit Singh (supra). The leared 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 ofence was committed in Delhi or outside Delhi?