9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent states that since petitioner is now conceding that the order impugned in the petitions is a valid order, since learned Metropolitan Magistrate has held that Courts at Delhi did not have jurisdiction over the matter and hence returned the complaint, to be filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction proceedings conducted at Delhi cannot be preserved. 3. Pertaining to Crl. M.C. No. 2386/2001, relevant facts are that in the year 1988 the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a goods transport vehicle being truck No. URR-1543 near Hodal, UP'-Haryana border. The truck was brought to the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at CGO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded. Application was thereafter filed challenging the jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi. Vide order dated 12-3-2001, learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed return of the complaint to be filed in the concerned Court having territorial jurisdiction. 9. Pertaining to Crl. M.C. No. 3112/2003, the motor vehicle in question was intercepted at Sirsa. It was escorted to the office of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Search is stated to have yielded gold biscuits. 10. Alleging violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, complaint was filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in the year 1990. Accused persons were summoned. Pre-charge evidence commenced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was committed." 14. A bare perusal of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 makes it clear that ordinarily, every offence has to be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. 15. As observed by Blackstone : 'All crime is local, the jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed.' 16. As explained by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 1961 S.C. 1589 Purushottam Das Dalmiya v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1961 S.C. 1601 L.N. Mukherjee v. State of Madras, AIR 1963 S.C. 1620 Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala v. UOI, the word used in Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is 'ordinarily'. The said use of the word indicates th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion from such a course would be only in cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239." 18. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded to the legality of the orders impugned, which have held that Courts at Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction I need not expand on the issue of territorial jurisdiction in relation to the offences save and except to note that the legislature has evidenced the legislative intent not with relation to a language which would oust the jurisdiction of a Court not having the requisite territorial jurisdiction but has used a language with reference to the place where an offence would ordinarily be tried. This, in my mind would have a bearing on the question whether proceedings conducted by a Court ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice." 23. Prima facie, proceedings in a Court lacking territorial jurisdiction would not render the proceedings void unless the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. 24. In the decision reported as JT 2001 (7) SC 55 State of M.P. v. Bhooraji and Anr., the Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 25. With reference to the view taken by the High Court that the trial was vitiated on account of lack of jurisdiction by the Sessions Court and requiring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice the proceedings were saved. 27. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show as to in what manner a failure of justice has ensued as a result of Courts at Delhi taking cognizance of the complaint and proceeding ahead with the trial. 28. I may note at this stage that I have not considered the issue of acquiescence notwithstanding the fact that the accused persons chose to participate in the proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi for 10 years before questioning the jurisdiction of the Court on ground of territorial jurisdiction. 29. The question, whether pertaining to territorial jurisdiction in relation to criminal offences principles of acquiescence would be attracted is thus left open. 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
