2020 (1) TMI 177 - HC - Customs

Permission to travel abroad - Applicant-respondent was enlarged on bail and was restricted from travelling abroad - ground adduced by the respondent, was that he had two minor children, who were studying in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and that, owing to his being detained in India, the studies of the children were being seriously affected, as well as business was being affected - HELD THAT - The facts of the case do not warrant any interference with the directions, of the learned CMM, permitting the respondent to travel abroad, as upheld by the learned ASJ - The address of the respondent, during his stay abroad, has been furnished by the respondent and respondent is also being represented by his counsel, whose details have also been provided to the DRI. Moreover, the learned CMM while dismissing the application for cancellation of bail vide order dated 25th September, 2019, notes that the Deputy Director of the DRI, categorically stated, before the Court that the respondent was not required anymore for the purpose of investigation, and that requisite examination of the respondent had already been conducted. The learned ASJ in the impugned order dated 26th November, 2019, takes note of the same. Moreover, the learned ASJ notes that the counsel for the petitioner had made a statement that since the detailed Show Cause Notice dated 26th September, 2019 was issued and served on the respondent, he was not required for further investigations in the present matter. The respondent is permitted to travel abroad for a period of two months, which will commence from the date when he departs. For this purpose, DRI is directed to return the passport of the respondent, to him within a period of one week from today - The respondent shall ensure that he will appear before the Indian Embassy at Dubai every 10 days. No default, by the respondent, in this regard, shall be condoned and any default, in this regard, will result in this order standing vacated and ceasing to apply.

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission to travel abroad granted by the learned CMM and ASJ.
2. Challenge by DRI against the order allowing travel abroad.
3. Fundamental right to travel abroad.
4. Conditions imposed on the respondent for traveling abroad.
5. Request for additional conditions by DRI.
6. Requirement for the respondent to register presence at the Indian Embassy in Dubai.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), challenged the orders passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) allowing the respondent, facing trial under the Customs Act, to travel abroad. The respondent, holding an Indian passport, sought permission to travel due to family and business reasons.

2. The learned ASJ dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition by DRI, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I, which upholds the right to travel abroad as a fundamental right. The ASJ found no justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CMM in permitting the respondent to travel abroad with specified conditions.

3. The DRI contended that the conditions imposed for travel were insufficient given the seriousness of the charges against the respondent related to smuggling activities. However, the court found no grounds to interfere with the CMM's decision, noting that the respondent had provided necessary details and was represented by authorized counsel.

4. The court directed the respondent to travel abroad for two months, returning the passport within a week. The respondent was required to report to the Indian Embassy in Dubai every 10 days and return to India before the expiry of the two-month period. Failure to comply would result in the order being vacated.

5. While the court did not impose additional conditions requested by DRI, it acknowledged the need for the respondent to periodically register his presence at the Indian Embassy in Dubai, ensuring compliance with the terms of travel.

6. The judgment balanced the respondent's right to travel with the concerns raised by DRI, ultimately allowing travel with specific conditions to address the ongoing legal proceedings and the respondent's obligations during the period of travel.