2019 (6) TMI 520 - HC - Customs

Release of passport - prayer for speedy completion of investigation - 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 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought by the petitioner including writs for release of currency and passport.
2. Consideration of the case under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Speedy completion of investigation requested by the petitioner.
4. Respondent's contention on the realistic timeline for investigation completion.
5. Court's decision on directing completion of investigation within a specific timeframe.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought various reliefs including writs for the release of seized currency and passport. The petitioner requested the completion of the investigation pending under the Customs Act, 1962, preferably within four weeks to alleviate the prejudicial impact caused by the investigation.

2. The case was considered under the Customs Act, 1962, with a specific investigation pending with the respondent. The petitioner emphasized the need for a speedy conclusion to the investigation due to the adverse effects of the ongoing process.

3. The petitioner's counsel urged for the expeditious completion of the investigation, emphasizing the petitioner's cooperation and adherence to imposed conditions. The respondent's counsel highlighted the complexity of the investigation and argued for a more realistic timeline of six months for completion.

4. The Court refrained from delving into the stage or delay of the investigation, emphasizing the need for a thorough but timely completion of the process. The Court directed the respondent to complete the investigation within three months from the date of the judgment, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the specified timeline.

5. The judgment concluded by directing the respondent to complete the investigation within the specified timeframe and emphasized the petitioner's cooperation throughout the process. The Court also noted that the petitioner could request waivers for intermittent appearances based on cooperation and the stage of the investigation.