1989 (6) TMI 143 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission granted to accused to go abroad with conditions.
2. Challenge to the conditions imposed on the accused.
3. Consideration of the accused's credibility and likelihood of returning.
4. Balancing the accused's opportunity against the pending criminal case.
5. Additional conditions imposed by the court for ensuring the accused's return.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the permission granted to an accused (Respondent No. 1) to go abroad while facing charges in a criminal case. The accused sought to travel abroad for a job opportunity and obtained permission from the Magistrate with certain conditions, which are now being challenged.

2. The conditions imposed on the accused by the Magistrate included obtaining consent from the surety, furnishing a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs, and ensuring the advocate's presence during proceedings. The accused challenged these conditions as ultra vires the Constitution, seeking to travel with a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 without additional conditions.

3. The court considered the credibility of the accused in terms of returning for trial. The defense highlighted the accused's young age, academic achievements, and career prospects, arguing for the opportunity to go abroad. However, concerns were raised by the prosecution regarding the accused's role in the alleged excise duty evasion.

4. The judgment balanced the accused's opportunity for personal and professional growth against the pending criminal case. The court acknowledged the need to prevent undue confinement without trial while ensuring the accused's presence for legal proceedings.

5. In addition to upholding the Magistrate's order with existing conditions, the court imposed two additional conditions to further ensure the accused's return. These conditions required the accused to provide a fresh letter of appointment from the employer and a letter acknowledging the pending criminal case, both to be submitted to the Central Excise before departure.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complexities of allowing an accused to travel abroad while facing criminal charges, emphasizing the need to balance individual opportunities with legal obligations. The court upheld the original conditions with additional safeguards to secure the accused's return for trial, ultimately disposing of the revision application and discharging the rule.