2005 (3) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion to try the respondents for offences under Section 135(1)(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(1)(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 at 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on in courts in Delhi. The question was sufficiently gone into by the High Court of Punjab & 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 i....