2024 (1) TMI 1301 - HC - Customs

Seeking permission to travel abroad - HELD THAT - It is evident that, at the present moment of time, there are no criminal charges against the petitioner, nor is he required for the purpose of answering any penal imputation. He has been acquitted by at least two Courts; though, the stand of the 4th respondent is that they intend to challenge Ext.P3 judgment before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, through a Special Leave Petition. This Court cannot find the stand of the 4th respondent - that the petitioner should continue to be detained, solely because they intend to file a Special Leave Petition against Ext.P2 judgment, to be tenable. The 3rd respondent is directed to take necessary steps to allow the petitioner to travel to Ireland as per law and subject to all other statutory and imperative requirements being satisfied, without any avoidable delay, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking direction for issuance of Exit Permit by 3rd respondent.
2. Requirement of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Assistant Commissioner of Customs by 3rd respondent.
3. Potential challenge to the judgment by the Department of Customs.
4. Concerns raised by the Department of Customs regarding the petitioner's travel outside India.
5. Petitioner's urgent need to travel due to mother's critical illness.
6. Petitioner's previous travels to Ireland during legal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an Irish citizen, was acquitted of Customs Act offences by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Despite the acquittal, the Department of Customs challenged the release of his passport, leading to the current situation where the petitioner seeks an Exit Permit from the 3rd respondent to travel back home.

2. The 3rd respondent requires a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs for the issuance of the Exit Permit. The petitioner's counsel argues that the lack of a written communication regarding the travel restriction is prejudicial, and requests the immediate issuance of the NOC to facilitate the petitioner's travel.

3. The Department of Customs intends to challenge the judgment acquitting the petitioner before the Supreme Court. They express concerns about the petitioner's potential unavailability if allowed to travel outside India, especially in the absence of an Extradition Treaty with Ireland.

4. The Department of Customs argues that allowing the petitioner to travel may hinder the legal process, as securing his presence in case of an adverse Supreme Court ruling could be challenging without an Extradition Treaty in place.

5. The urgency of the petitioner's travel is highlighted due to his mother's critical illness, supported by a medical certificate detailing her condition. The petitioner's counsel emphasizes the irreparable harm that could be caused by any delay in his travel plans.

6. The petitioner's previous travels to Ireland during the legal proceedings are acknowledged, with his counsel asserting that his intention was never to evade legal processes but to face them honorably, as evidenced by his acquittal in the previous cases.

In conclusion, the High Court allows the writ petition, directing the 3rd respondent to facilitate the petitioner's travel to Ireland within two weeks. The judgment emphasizes the absence of criminal charges against the petitioner and the need to prioritize his urgent travel due to his mother's critical condition. The Court dismisses the Department of Customs' concerns about potential legal challenges, highlighting the petitioner's right to relief and the lack of grounds for his continued detention or travel restriction.