9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited ('BIL'), a company registered in Mumbai, was at the relevant time marketing Akai Brand Colour Television sets. BIL entered into a contract with M/s. Akai Limited, Japan and Akai Electronic Corporation, Japan whereby the rebate would be paid to BIL based on the sales volume for the specific period. According to the complaint, information was received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ("DRI") that BIL and another firm, M/s. J.R. Electronics (which was later reconstituted as J.R. Consumer Electronics Private Limited) had been importing Akai brand colour TV sets in semi-knocked down ("SKD") form through the port of Mumbai by misdeclaring the same as components of colour TVs. The factory premises of M/s. J.R. Electronics at Noida, U.P., where the colour TVs were assembled, were searched by the Officers of the DRI, New Delhi on 17th October, 1995. The components of the colour TV and packages were found having a marketing of Baron India. In para 4 of the complaint it is stated thus: "It was learnt by the DRI that certain investigations had been conducted by the officers of Central Excise, Noida, UP and Director General of Anti Evasion, Mumbai, into the activities of accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion that this stage there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of Customs Act. I take cognizance of offence under Sections 132/135(1)(a) of Customs Act. Issue summons to accused for 22-3-2004 Sd/ ACMM/17.12.2003" 5. Thereafter on 6th July, 2004 the following order was passed: "Present : Proxy for APP Accused are absent. Process received back unserved with report that present whereabouts of accused firm and accused persons are not traced out. Issue summons to accused by publication in newspaper on 30-10-2004 Sd/-ACMM/6.7.04" 6. The Petitioners filed the present petitions Crl M C 656/2005 and Crl M C 671/2005 on 26th February, 2005 and 28th February, 2005 respectively. On 28th February, 2005 in Crl M C 656/2005 this Court passed the following order: "Crl M A 2218/205 in Crl M C 656/2005 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl M C 656/2005 and Crl M A 2217/2005 Learned Senior counsel Mr. Gandhi submits that the entire transaction has taken place at Mumbai and that the Courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. The prayer made in the petition is for returning of the complaint so th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Agarwal, 1999 Crl LJ 4325 that the absence of territorial jurisdiction to try the matter is not a bar to a criminal court taking cognizance of the complaint. It is further contended that the scope of Sections 177 and 179 CrPC is wide enough to permit the criminal court not having territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance and subsequently transmit the case to the court of appropriate jurisdiction. It is contended that the allegation against the Petitioners includes the submission of false and fabricated invoices and since some of the invoices in question were made at Delhi that is sufficient to grant territorial jurisdiction to the court at Delhi. Mr. Aggarwala has relied upon two judgments of this Court. The first judgment dated 9th October, 2007 passed in Crl. M C 2386 of 2001 (DRI v. Kumarpal) and the second judgment is dated 14th January, 2008 passed in Crl M C 3325-26 of 2006 (Amarjit Singh v. Vinod Kumar Sharma). 10. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the import of the goods took place in Mumbai, a show cause notice was issued in Mumbai and the adjudication order thereon was passed in Mumbai. The further appeal against that order was filed before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etting aside the order of the learned ACMM directed that the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana could only mean that the learned MM, New Delhi had to pass an order under Section 201 CrPC returning the complaint to the complainant for presentation in the appropriate court in accordance with law. 13. On the strength of the law as explained in the aforementioned judgments the inevitable conclusion in the case on hand is that the complaint of the Respondent has to be returned by the learned MM, New Delhi to the Respondent for being presented in the appropriate court. 14. In DRI v. Kumarpal the question was whether the complaint itself had become bad in law o account of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court where such complaint was presented. It was held that even if the question of territorial jurisdiction stood decided in favour of the accused the complaint would have to be transferred to the competent court. This is precisely what the Petitioners are praying for here. 15. In Amarjit Singh v. Vinod Kumar Sharma the Petitioner who was facing proceedings under the Act approached the Settlement Commission in Delhi and offered to pay the disputed duty. The Settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
