Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.67 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Ram Narain Bishwanath And Ors. on 5 December, 1996
In Union of India v. Ram Narain Bishwanath in one of the cases in the batch, the goods were cleared for import at Bombay. The Supreme Court held that the customs authorities in Bombay alone had jurisdiction. In another case in the same batch where the goods were imported at Paradip in Orissa, it was held the mere fact that they were subsequently transported to Howrah where they were seized by the customs authorities could not bring the case under the jurisdiction of the customs authorities in West Bengal. Although the Supreme Court was concerned with the jurisdiction of the customs officers and not of the concerned criminal courts, the principle would remain the same viz., the criminal courts having territorial jurisdiction in the port where the imports took place will alone be competent to try the criminal case concerning such import.
Amarjit Singh And Anr. vs Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma And Anr. on 14 January, 2008
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 Commission granted immunity from penalty and fine but not from prosecution. In response to the submission of the accused that since some of the imports had taken place in Mumbai, the criminal court in Delhi did not have jurisdiction, this Court held that this issue could be decided by the trial court itself. Clearly the facts of the present case are different since all material events have taken place only in Mumbai.
Section 177 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 179 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Customs Act, 1962
Trisuns Chemical Industry vs Rajesh Agarwal And Others C on 17 September, 1999
9. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned Counsel appearing for the DRI has contended that this petition is premature since the question of territorial jurisdiction can arise only at the stage of enquiry and trial. It is also contended that the Petitioners have filed an application before the learned ACMM, New Delhi raising the issue of territorial jurisdiction and that application is still pending. It is contended by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Trisnus Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal 1999 Crl.L.J. 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.