JUDGMENT

V.K. Shali, J.

1. By virtue of the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, that is, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as DRI), has challenged the order dated 8.12.2003 by virtue of which the learned ACMM, New Delhi, had discharged the accused persons on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction, however, liberty was granted to the complainant to file the complaint before the concerned court having the jurisdiction in accordance with law.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 135 (1) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, came to be filed against four persons, namely, Lakhwinder Singh @ Lukha Pusia, Gurmej Singh, Jagbir Singh and Harkesh Chand. In the present petition, so far as accused Lakhwinder Singh is concerned, he is declared as proclaimed offender by the trial court and, therefore, he is not impleaded as a party. Accused Jagbir Singh and Harkesh Chand (respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively herein) are stated to be not represented while accused Gurmej Singh (respondent No.1 herein) is the only accused who is represented before this court. The allegations contained in the complaint were that on the basis of a specific information that a white coloured Maruti Van bearing registration No.CH-01A-8195, allegedly carrying contraband gold, would be passing through Panipat and enroute to New Delhi, the officers of DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, kept surveillance at Kohend Police Post at National Highway (1), Haryana on 23.7.1990. The officers of the DRI noticed that a white Maruti Van with the aforesaid registration number approached the Police Post at about 9:30 hours on the said date. The driver was signaled to stop but instead of stopping, he sped away towards Panipat side. The DRI officials then chased the white Maruti Van and intercepted it near Panipat at about 10 hours on the same date. One of the occupants of the Van, whose name was later on revealed as Gurmej Singh, respondent No.1, tried to flee but he was over-powered. The Van along with its occupants, Gurmej Singh and Jagbir Singh, the driver, were escorted to Delhi by officials of the DRI at Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi. It is alleged in the complaint that no proceedings could be conducted at the place of interception for security reasons as large crowd had gathered there. On rummaging of the Van in Delhi, in the presence of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and two independent witnesses, three cloth vansalies containing 300 gold biscuits bearing foreign markings were recovered from a secret cavity inside the Maruti Van. The Government approved valuation of the gold bars was fixed at Rs.1,15,48,350/-. The Van was also seized. Statements of the accused persons under Section 108 of the Customs Act were recorded and thereafter, the complaint was filed on 2.7.1991. The learned ACMM took cognizance and directed issuance of summons against the accused persons. Since this was a complaint filed by the officials of DRI, in their official capacity, no pre-summoning evidence was adduced and after the service of all the accused persons, the prosecution started its pre-charge evidence. It was at the stage of pre-charge evidence in the year 2003, that an application came to be filed by the accused Gurmej Singh, respondent No.1, under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. for his discharge. The plea which was taken by the accused was that the Delhi Court did not have the jurisdiction as the vehicle was intercepted in Panipat, in Haryana and, therefore, the offence was complete in terms of Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. in Haryana itself.

3. The petitioner herein (DRI) filed the reply to the application and contested the plea of the respondent/accused for discharge on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. A preliminary objection was taken that the application is hopelessly barred as it is filed after the expiry of more than 12 years from the date of taking cognizance and, therefore, the objection with r