9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . While he was about to leave the Airport, he was intercepted by an Intelligence Officer of Customs and his baggage was opened and examined in the presence of witnesses. The Sony colour television in the carton weighed heavily and hence the Customs Officer unscrewed the back cover and found three packets pasted with black adhesive tapes inside the right and left side walls of the television. One packet contained gold jewellery viz., 10 bangles, one pair of ear rings studded with red and white stones, one gold pendent, two gold necklaces, two small necklaces and one bracelet. Each of the other two packets contained 2 one kilo gold bars. All the 4 gold bars bore foreign marks 'Johnson Mathey-9999-London-1 kilo'. The jewellery was worth Rs. 51638, and the gold bars Rs. 8,18,000 in all Rs. 8,69,638. The accused was not in possession of a valid permit for the importation of gold and gold jewellery in India and has imported them in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Customs Act. He also failed to declare his goods and had kept concealed them inside the colour television. All the goods were, therefore, seized and the accused was arrested. His passpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereby defeat the ends of justice. The apprehension of the department cannot be said to be farce or fanciful taking into account the magnitude of the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent-accused. In fact, the learned Magistrate has himself found considerable force in the above contention of the department and has felt that if the petitioner did not return, the Court would be helpless to secure him, but has ordered the release of the respondent on sympathetic grounds, in that he has lost his father and wanted to console his mother, who is undergoing iddat. Such sympathetic considerations cannot outweigh the interests of administration of justice. The paramount consideration is the securing of the presence of the accused to face the trial and when there is reasonable apprehension thereabout, the only course available to the Court is to deny him the facility to leave the country by withholding or impounding his passport. 6. The main thrust of the arguments of Thiru M.R.M. Abdul Karim, the learned Counsel for the respondent accused, however, is that the Court has no jurisdiction to seize, withhold or impound the passport of a person he be an Indian or a foreigner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Supreme Court prior to the passing of the Indian Passports Act, 1967. The majority of the Judges held that a person ' living in India has a fundamental right to travel abroad under Art. 2 of the Constitution and cannot be denied a passport, because, factually, a passport a necessary condition for travel abroad and the Government, by withholding the passport, can effectively deprive him of his right. It was pointed out that under Article 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his right to travel a except according to the procedure established by law, and no law had been made by the State regulating or depriving a person of such a right. The majority of the Judges of the Supreme Court also held that the Government's claim for absolute discretion in the matter of issuing passports would be violat five of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the order of the Passport Authority withdrawing the passport facility extended to the petitioner was struck down. It is this decision which has led to the passing of the Indian Passports Act, 1967, providing for the issue of passports and travel documents to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person accused of an offence, who is likely to leave the shores of the country and make good his escape from the clutches of law. 9. It is then urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent's passport expires in January 1985, that-the respondent has to return to Singapore before the expiry of his passport, so that he could have it renewed, and in default he will lose his citizenship in Singapore and can never again and in that country, that he cannot continue to live in India as well and he will thus become a Stateless person. The argument has the merit of attractive plausibility, but a close scrutiny will expose its hallowness. The laws of Singapore are not so stringent and the difficulties echoed by the respondent are not so insurmountable as portrayed by his learned Counsel. When a person is stranded in a foreign country and could not return to his native land before the expiry of his passport, the usual practice is to apply to his country's Diplomatic Mission in the foreign country in which he is stranded to renew his passport or to extend the period of expiry or for the issue of a travel document to go back to his country. So also it is the Diplomatic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
