ORDER :- This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the Order dated June 30, 1983, in Case No.40/CW/1983 and Case No.4/Misc. of 1983, passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay.

2. The learned trial Magistrate has precisely and correctly narrated the facts of two complaints lodged by the Customs Department in his Court. I may only briefly refer to few dates which are necessary to appreciate the rival contentions raised before me in this Revision Applications. On Feb. 21, 1982, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, filed a complaint bearing Case No.40/CS/1983 under S.120B, I.P.C. S.135 (1) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act and S.5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. This complaint was filed against six accused persons. It is alleged in that complaint that accused No.1 -Respondent No.1 Razak Kasim Narkar, a South African national was about to leave for Salisbury by air and upon examination of his baggage it disclosed 2 lac tablets of Mandrex valued at Rs.2,00,000/- and some foreign exchange. It is then alleged that the accused No.1 was not having requisite permission to export these articles and, therefore, these articles came to be seized under a panchnama. After carrying out the necessary investigation, the aforesaid criminal complaint came to be filed against these six accused persons. The accused No.1 was released on bail by @page-CriLJ1455 the trial Magistrate on Feb. 21, 1982. The Customs Department then examined two witnesses before the charge. Last witness was examined on May 11, 1983. At this stage Customs department prima facie opined that the complaint suffers from some defects and those defects need to be cured. The Customs. Department, therefore, took the decision to file another complaint, and accordingly, on June 17, 1983, second complaint on the same facts came to be filed in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. The said case is numbered as 4/Misc. of 1983. Second complaint is filed by the Customs Department only against the three accused persons who are original accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 in Case No.40/CW 1983. This new complaint is filed for the offences punishable under S.120, I.P.C. and S.135 (1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act read with S.5 of the Imports and Exports Act. The learned trial Magistrate has considered the allegations contained in both these complaints in his Judgment and I do not think, it is necessary to reproduce the same in this Judgment. The difficulty that arose before the learned trial Magistrate was in connection with taking congnizance of the second complaint when the first complaint bearing Case No.40/CW/1983 is still alive and in which process has already been issued and the said case is at the stage of framing of the charge. The Customs Department in its second complaint has made a reference to the pendency of the first complaint. It also recites the necessity of filing of this second complaint. The second complaint bearing No.4/ Misc. of 1983 was placed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for taking cognizance. The Magistrate upon perusing the contents of the second complaint opined that unless the first complaint is disposed of, the cognizance of the second complaint including the issuance of the process cannot be considered. In view of this conclusion, the learned trial Magistrate passed the following order :

"Issuance of process on the complaint in Case No.4/Misc. of 1983 would be considered only after the disposal of Case No.40/CW/ 1983. Case No.40/CW/1983 to continue."

It is this Order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, is the subject-matter of this Revision Application.

3. Shri A.R. Gupte, the learned Advocate appearing for the Complainant Customs Department in support of this Revision Application urged that the order passed by the trial Magistrate suffers from vice of failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by not considering and/or taking cognizance of the second complaint filed by the Customs Departme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document