2019 (6) TMI 336 - HC - Customs

Release of passport - Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - This Court is not proposing to examine the stage of investigation or delay thereof. The investigation now is completely seized by the respondent under the Act. The fact of the matter is depending on the nature of allegations and also the intensity of these allegations, detailed investigation certainly is required but the investigation ought to be completed within some reasonable definite time and necessary orders are passed in accordance with law. This Court is of the view that the respondent can be directed to complete the investigation pending as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - The respondent since is subjected to timelines for completion of investigation, it is needless to observe that the petitioner without fail or demur extends full co-operation and participates in the ongoing investigation. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of currency and passport by the respondent.
2. Delay in completion of investigation under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Request for expedited investigation and release of seized items.
4. Determination of a reasonable time frame for completing the investigation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief through a writ to set aside the seizure of currency and passport by the respondent. The Court directed the respondent to release the passport earlier, but the investigation under the Customs Act, 1962 was still pending.

2. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the need for expeditious completion of the investigation, stating that the petitioner had cooperated and abided by all conditions. The delay in investigation was causing prejudice to the petitioner, who was residing abroad. The respondent's counsel argued that the investigation was being conducted lawfully and could not be rushed based on the petitioner's convenience.

3. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity for a detailed investigation. It directed the respondent to complete the investigation within three months from the date of the judgment, emphasizing the importance of timely completion while ensuring the petitioner's cooperation throughout the process.

4. The Court's decision mandated the respondent to adhere to the specified timeline for completing the investigation. It also allowed the petitioner to request waivers for intermittent appearances based on cooperation levels and the investigation's stage. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition with these directives in place.