Judgment :- 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. 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 give the gold biscuits and that he used to arrange helpers for landing of gold biscuits. " Nawas Khan is A3 in C.C.154/91. " Nawas Khan is A3 in C.C.154/91. Thus, in the complaint, in C.C.120/91, there is reference to Nawas Khan coming to the house to take the remaining gold biscuits to Coimbatore and reference to R2 going to Nawas Khan giving the gold biscuits. This is found in the confession statement given by Ummer. From it, it cannot be stated that the subject-matter of offence in C.C.120/91 is the same in the complaint in C.C.154/91, so as to attract the embargo placed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, I am unable to accept the second submission made by Mr. Abdul Nazeer. 7.In the result, the petition fails and shall stand dismissed. At the time when the order was to be pronounced, Mr. Abdul Nazeer, would submit that on identical facts, inKanwarjit Singhv.Union of India[1994 1 Crimes 255], Punjab & Haryana High Court had held that the court had no jurisdiction to try the case and the same principle may be applied to this case also. InKanwarjit Singhv.Union of India[1994 1 Crimes 255] supra, the facts are different. On 6-1-1988, a specific intelligence report was received indicating that Kanwarjit Singh had arranged for the smuggling of 520 foreign marked gold biscuits into the Amritsar Sector of the Indo-Pak Border which would be reaching Delhi in the evening of January 6, 1988, concealed in a truck. In pursuance of that report, the truck was intercepted at Kundli on Delhi-Haryana border by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi and 520 foreign marked gold biscuits valued at Rs. 2.12 crore were recovered from a concealed wooden partition separating the driver's cabin from the rear body of the truck. The complaint was lodged before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. He took cognizance of the offence. It was challenged on the ground that the court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to try the case. The important thing to be noted is that the place of interception was Kundli, which is a town admittedly situated within the State of Haryana.Ex facie, the court at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. So, it was held that the Court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to try the case. But such are not the facts here. So this case would not apply to this case. Hence I am unable to accept this submission made by Mr. So, it was held that the Court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to try the case. But such are not the facts here. So this case would not apply to this case. Hence I am unable to accept this submission made by Mr. Abdul Nazeer. For the reasons already stated, the petition fails and shall stand dismissed.The petitioner is at liberty to urge all the points before the court below and the learned Magistrate shall not in any way be influenced by any of the observations made in this order.