2024 (6) TMI 205 - HC - Customs

Seeking return of Malaysian Passport - offence under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of The Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling of Gold - HELD THAT - It is seen that the petitioners arrested and detained by the respondent on 29.04.2022 since they were found in possession of yellow metal/gold bars to the tune of 4.200 kgs valued around Rs. 2,25,54,000/- without any permission or license. The petitioners admitted smuggling of gold, not declaring to the customs authorities and they were intercepted while passing green channel. The petitioners arrested, gold bars seized and now confiscated. The petitioners were later granted bail by this Court with a direction to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- each apart from other conditions. In the confiscation proceedings/appeal, as regards 2nd petitioner is concerned, lenient view taken since her intention was to come to India, visit Temple and she had no idea about gold being smuggled by the 1st petitioner or about his plan of smuggling in collusion with one V.Girinath. The 2nd petitioner found to be an unsuspecting traveller who trusted the 1st petitioner who was taking three women on a tour to India for temple visits. It is observed in the adjudication proceedings order, the packet containing gold was kept in the handbag of the 2nd petitioner who lacks intelligence and common sense to refuse the same. Added to it, the 2nd petitioner being a foreign national, she might not be aware of Indian law of bringing gold as bar and to what extent it is permissible - The finding is that the evidence pointed towards the innocence of the 2nd petitioner and her mistake seems to be accompanied the 1st petitioner and allowed him to keep the gold bar in her bag. It is seen that the 2nd petitioner already deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- as per the order of this Court - The 2nd petitioner's son Sheveendra aged 10 years, is taking treatment as inpatient in Loh Guan Lye Specialists Centre, Malaysia. The medical certificate and photograph of her son taking treatment produced, but not seriously disputed. It is to be noted that there is Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Malaysia - this Court is inclined to grant return of Malaysian passport to the 2nd petitioner alone, subject to conditions imposed. The impugned order confirmed as regards 1st petitioner. This criminal revision case stands allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioners seek the return of their Malaysian passports u/s 451 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences u/s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of The Customs Act, 1962.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Background of the Case:
The petitioners were found smuggling gold bars and subsequently arrested. The gold bars were concealed in their luggage, leading to their detention and initiation of confiscation proceedings. The petitioners were granted bail with conditions.

2. Petitioners' Submissions:
The petitioners requested the return of their passports citing family emergencies and health issues. They argued that they had already complied with bail conditions and challenged the delay in the trial proceedings.

3. Prosecution's Arguments:
The prosecution opposed the return of passports, highlighting the seriousness of the charges and the likelihood of the petitioners fleeing justice. Previous petitions for passport return were dismissed based on the risk of absconding.

4. Court's Decision:
After considering the submissions, the Court noted the circumstances of both petitioners. While the 1st petitioner's involvement in smuggling was clear, the 2nd petitioner was found to be an unwitting participant. The Court allowed the return of the 2nd petitioner's passport with specific conditions.

5. Conditions for Passport Return:
The Court directed the 2nd petitioner to provide her contact details, undertake to cooperate with the trial proceedings, and appear at key stages of the trial. The Court also informed the Immigration Authorities of the decision.

6. Final Verdict:
The Court set aside the order denying the 2nd petitioner's passport return and confirmed the decision for the 1st petitioner. The criminal revision case was allowed in part, granting relief to the 2nd petitioner.

This judgment balances the seriousness of the charges with the individual circumstances of the petitioners, allowing one petitioner to travel for family reasons while ensuring compliance with legal proceedings.