- (1.) A. N. Gupta, J. Petitioner in this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is said to be the owner of M/s Singh Transport Corporation, Kanpur having its business premises in Transport Nagar, Kanpur. The preventive officers of Customs (P) Headquarter Lucknow on the basis of previous information kept surveillance on the business premises of the petitioner at Kanpur on 23-8-1996. On 24-8-1996-at about 5. 30 a. m. , they stopped one suspected truck bearing registration number DIG/9553 moving towards Delhi. The said truck-was intercepted by them when it had moved hardly about two Kms. towards Delhi. Firoz Khan was the driver of the said vehicle and Ahmad Mian was its cleaner and both were present at the time of interception. They disclosed that said truck was carrying 800 packets of Britania biscuits and on further enquiry they revealed that in between packets of biscuits 79 packets of Rumanian Bali Bearing have also been loaded in the said truck which was to be delivered at 27, Majnu Ka Teela, New Delhi which is New Delhi Branch office of M/s Singh Transport Corporation. They could not produce any document evidencing payment of customs duty. Since a mob had gathered at the place where truck was intercepted, truck alongwith driver and cleaner were brought to the Custom Headquarter, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow where search of the truck was made and 79 packets of Romanian Ball Bearing containing 40506 pieces valued at Rs. 3838500 were recovered which were concealed in packets of biscuits and the driver and cleaner further revealed that 11 more packets were lying in the premises of M/s Singh Transport Corporation at Kanpur. Accordingly, a party was immediately dispatched to Kanpur which recovered said 11 packets of Romanian Ball Bearing also. The recovery memo was prepared at Lucknow and driver, cleaner and the petitioner were examined or interrogated under Section 108 of the Customs Act at Lucknow. After completing the investigation, the Customs department filed a criminal complaint under Section 135 (1) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Luck- now which has been registered at Criminal Case No. 10861 of 1996.
(2.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been preferred by the alleged owner of the Transport Corporation contending that the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow does not have any jurisdiction to try the case and the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur alone has jurisdiction in the matter. The State Government by means of its notification dated 6th May, 1996 issued under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11, Cr. P. C. had constituted six courts of Special Chief Judicial Magistrates at Lucknow, Agra, Varanasi, Meerut, Allahabad and Kanpur for trying the offences under twelve Acts mentioned in Schedule 3 of the said notification. Out of these, Courts at Allahabad and Kanpur had existed earlier but jurisdiction was changed because of the creation of other four Courts by means of this notification. Twelve Acts are mentioned in Schedule 3 of the notification which relate to economic offences and at serial number 5 there is mention of the Customs Act which means that Courts of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate only have jurisdiction to try the offences under the Customs Act which are committed within their local areas of jurisdiction. According to this notification, the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow has been empowered to try the cases of several districts including Lucknow. It is further mentioned in the notification that Special Chief Judicial Magistrates have jurisdiction to try the offences which are committed within their local areas for which their Special Courts have been created. Section 2 (j) defines 'local jurisdiction' as follows: "local jurisdiction", in relation to a Court or Magistrate means the local area within which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under this Code (and such local area may comprise the whole of the State, or any part of the State, as the State Government may, by notification, specify)". From the above, it is clear that Courts of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate have jurisdiction in respect of local area for which they have been created. The Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate at Luck- now does not have any jurisdiction over the local area of Kanpur and similarly the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kanpur does not have any jurisdiction over the local area of Lucknow. Other provisions of Cr. P. C. will have to be looked into to find out as to which court has jurisdiction to try this case. Section 177, Cr. P. C. provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 (b), Cr. P. C. provides that where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any such of local area. 4, In view of the above, it is to be seen as to whether the offence was committed within the local jurisdiction at Kanpur Court only or within the jurisdiction of Lucknow Court only or within the jurisdiction of both the Courts. It is true that surveillance was kept by the Custom Department at kanpur, the business premises of the petitioners are also looked at Kanpur, goods were also loaded at Kanpur and truck was intercepted within the local jurisdiction of Kanpur Court but actual seizure and recovery were made at Lucknow within the jurisdiction of Lucknow Court. Cleaner, driver and petitioner were also arrested at Lucknow. Their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act were also recorded at Lucknow. Therefore the offence under and therefore me court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow also has jurisdiction to try the petitioner and other accused persons. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the truck was intercepted near Kanpur, there was no purpose to bring it to Lucknow and search and seizure could have taken place at Kanpur itself. In the complaint itself an explanation has been given for this by saying that since a crowd had collected at the place where the truck had been intercepted, the truck was brought to the Headquarters at Lucknow for the safety of the driver, cleaner, truck and goods also. In any case, no objection can be taken to the fact that search and seizure were not done at the place were the truck was intercepted. It is well-known that many a time interception of smuggled goods takes place at un- habitated place where it is neither safe nor desirable to make search and seizure. 6. In view of the above, there is no substance in this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. It is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;