Back
1994 Supreme(Mad) 601
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRATAP SINGH
K.P. Abdul Majeed - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Preventive) - Respondents
Crl.O.P. No. 5520 of 1992
Decided On : 09 August 1994
A court has jurisdiction to try a case if the alleged offence is part of a single transaction and each act is connected to the other. Article 22 of the Constitution of India does not bar the filing of a second complaint if it does not relate to the same subject-matter as the first complaint.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT - JURISDICTION - OFFENCE COMMITTED IN DIFFERENT STATES - WHETHER COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THE CASE - ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - WHETHER SECOND COMPLAINT IS MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No. 11 in a criminal case, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint against him. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, along with other accused, obtained 700 gold biscuits of foreign origin from Calicut and transported them to Coimbatore. The petitioner argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, did not have jurisdiction to try the case since the alleged offence was committed in Calicut. He also argued that a second complaint filed in Ernakulam with regard to the same gold biscuits was not maintainable in view of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint against the petitioner was not liable to be quashed. It found that the alleged offence was part of a single transaction and that each act was connected to the other. Therefore, the court had jurisdiction to try the case. The court also found that the second complaint filed in Ernakulam did not relate to the same subject-matter as the complaint in Coimbatore. Therefore, Article 22 of the Constitution of India was not attracted.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, had jurisdiction to try the case. 2. Whether the second complaint filed in Ernakulam was maintainable in view of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, had jurisdiction to try the case because the alleged offence was part of a single transaction and each act was connected to the other. 2. The court held that the second complaint filed in Ernakulam was not maintainable in view of Article 22 of the Constitution of India because it did not relate to the same subject-matter as the complaint in Coimbatore.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Accused No. 11 in C.C. No. 154/91 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.
2.Short facts are : The first respondent has filed a complaint against 14 accused for offences under Sections 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
3.Mr. M. Abdul Nazeer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the complaint is liable to be quashed on two grounds, viz., (1) the allegation made against the petitioner was that as per the statement of A. 3 he went to Calicut along with some other accused and obtained from A. 11 700 gold biscuits of foreign origin and transported the same to Coimbatore and that the said allegations would not bring the offence if any committed by him within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.
(2) Another case in C.C. 120/91 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Ernakulam was filed by the Assistant Collector, Special Customs Preventive Division, Calicut with regard to 33 jackets of gold transported to Quilandy beach and the said 33 jackets of gold which includes those 700 gold biscuits were referred to in the impugned complaint and as such that also relate to the very same offences which are alleged in the impugned complaint and so the second complaint cannot be maintained in view of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
4.I have heard Mr. P. Rajamanickam, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondents, on the above aspects and I have carefully considered the same.
5.To consider the first submission, the relevant portion of the complaint needs extraction. It reads as follows :
"A3 in his statement has deposed that during the last week of February, 1989 he got a phone call from one Basheer from Dubai directing him to immediately proceed to Calicut and meet Majeed (11). Accordingly he went to Calicut in his car along with A.5, A.7, A.8 and A.10 and obtained from the Majeed (A11), 700 gold biscuits of foreign origin and transported the same to Coimbatore with the help of A.5, A.7, A.8 and A.10. Further, he stated that A.12, son of A.11 and A.13 and A.14 actively and constructively associated themselves in transporting the said gold biscuits."*
A reading of the above would show that each and every act is part of a single transaction. It is not as if one can be dissociated from another. It is not as if, the act of one accused is a water tight compartment by itself, so as to segregate it from the act of the other accused. So, I am unable to accept the first submission made by Mr. Abdul Nazeer.
6.To consider the second submission, the relevant portion of the complaint filed in C.C. 120/91 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences); Ernakulam, need be reproduced. The complaint in C.C. 120/91 is a very lengthy complaint. The relevant portion in it reads as follows :
Shri V.P. Ummer @ Velutha Ummer gave voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 21-3-1989 before the Superintendent, Special Customs Preventive Division, Calicut. Therein he deposed that he is the father -in-law of Majeed; that he had helped Majeed several times in smuggling of gold; that Majeed had introduced Atha, Babu, Sathar and Ismail as partners in the smuggling; that on 23-3-1989 Majeed, Salam, Babu, Sathar and Atha had come to his house and discussed about concealing of gold biscuits landed at Quilandy on 22-2-1989; that later Assu also joined them; that it was decided that the 24 jackets concealed at Prasad's house should be shifted to Ismail's house at Irikkur; that then they dispersed; that on 24-2-1989 one Navas Khan had come from Coimbatore with Assu and two others to his house, that Nawas had come to take the remaining gold biscuits to Coimbatore that after changing dress Assu went with Nawas to giv
