Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act could be tried by the Delhi court, and whether the ACMM was right in returning the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Analysis: The offence was complete when the vehicle was intercepted at Bahraich and the officers discovered the contraband. The subsequent movement of the vehicle and accused to Delhi for search and seizure did not shift the place where the offence was committed. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires trial ordinarily by the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was inapplicable because the intended consequence in Delhi never ensued, the attempt having been aborted in Uttar Pradesh itself. Since the complaint had been presented before a court lacking jurisdiction, the appropriate course was return of the complaint under Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Conclusion: The Delhi court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the order returning the complaint was and not liable to interference.
Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under the Customs Act, territorial jurisdiction lies where the offence is completed, and jurisdiction cannot be created merely by transporting the accused or contraband to another place for search and seizure.