2016 (4) TMI 1025 - HC - Central Excise

Seeking directions for renewal of passport and for permission to travel abroad for a period of six months - Alleged evasion of duty against the company in which he is a director - Respondent contended that petitioner is involved in a serious offence of evasion of Central Excise duty and if he is granted permission to go abroad, he may not return - Held that - prosecution has been launched against the petitioner and his company and others for commission of offences punishable under Section 9 & 9AA of the Central Excise Act for evasion of excise duty to the tune of ₹ 65 crores. It has been mentioned that the Director General, Central Excise had given sanction vide order dated 25.05.2015 for launching prosecution. Since it has come on record that the prosecution has been launched against the petitioner and his company and the case has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court ceased to have any jurisdiction as this Court is having no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Therefore, no case is made out to direct the respondent to release the passport or to grant permission to the petitioner to go abroad. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Renewal of passport and permission to travel abroad under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a director of a company, sought renewal of his passport and permission to travel abroad for medical treatment. The respondent had filed a case against the company for excise duty evasion. The petitioner had previously obtained anticipatory bail with conditions, including surrendering his passport and seeking permission to travel abroad. The petitioner had also been granted permission to go abroad for a limited period in a separate petition. The respondent opposed the current petition, citing the seriousness of the offence and the risk of the petitioner not returning if allowed to travel. The respondent had launched prosecution against the petitioner and his company for excise duty evasion. The Court noted the jurisdictional issue, stating that since the prosecution case was filed in another court, the current court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief regarding passport renewal and travel permission. The petition was dismissed, advising the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies from the relevant court.

This judgment involved the interpretation of the conditions imposed during anticipatory bail and the jurisdictional limitations of the court. The court highlighted the conditions set during the previous grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing the surrender of the passport and the requirement for prior permission to travel abroad. The court also considered the prosecution launched by the respondent against the petitioner and the company for excise duty evasion. The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the prosecution case was filed in a different court, leading to the conclusion that the current court lacked jurisdiction to address the passport renewal and travel permission requests. The judgment underscored the importance of jurisdictional boundaries in legal proceedings and directed the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the relevant court.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the petitioner's plea for passport renewal and travel permission in the context of an ongoing prosecution for excise duty evasion. The court's decision was guided by the conditions of anticipatory bail, the jurisdictional limitations of the court, and the seriousness of the offence involved. By dismissing the petition due to lack of jurisdiction, the court emphasized the need for legal proceedings to align with the appropriate court's jurisdiction. The petitioner was advised to pursue remedies related to passport renewal and travel permission in the court where the prosecution case was filed.