Page 143 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE v. MOHAMMED NASHRUDDIN 365

for commission of offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The re-
spondent was enlarged on bail, vide order dated 3rd June, 2019, passed by the
Learned CMM, and the application, for cancellation of bail, moved by the DRI,
was also rejected by the Learned CMM, vide order dated 25th September, 2019. It
appears that DRI has accepted the said order and has not carried the matter to
any higher forum. One of the conditions, on which bail was granted to the re-
spondent, was that he would not leave the country without seeking permission
of the trial Court.
5. In view of the said condition, the respondent moved an application,
before the Learned Trial Court, for permission to travel abroad. The ground, ad-
duced by the respondent, was that he had two minor children, who were study-
ing in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and that, owing to his being detained in
India, the studies of the children were being seriously affected. It was also sought
to be contended that the respondent’s business interests were also being jeopard-
ized, as a result of his continued stay in India.
6. Vide order dated 11th November, 2019, Learned CMM permitted the
respondent to travel abroad, subject to the following conditions :
“(1) that he shall join the investigation as and when required by the IO.
(2) that he shall furnish FDRs in sum of ` 3,00,000/- with an undertak-
ing to report back in the Court on 20-11-2020 failing which the said
amounts shall stands forfeited without giving any notice;
(3) that he shall furnish his addresses during his stay at abroad;
(4) that he shall not seek extension of his stay at abroad on any ground
including medical ground;
(5) that he shall authorize his Counsel to receive notice on his behalf
during his stay at abroad;
(6) that he shall properly instruct his Counsel for proceeding further in
the case during stay in abroad and no adjournment shall be sought
by Counsel for lack of instruction from him;
(7) that he shall produce his surety in the Court on any working day to
give statement that surety has no objection in case accused is al-
lowed to go to abroad;
(8) that he shall surrender back his passport on his return from
abroad.”
7. The DRI assailed the aforesaid order dated 11th November, 2019, by
way of Criminal Revision Petition No. 774/2019, before the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge (ASJ). Vide order dated 26th November, 2019, the said Crl. Revi-
sion Petition No. 774/2019 stands dismissed by the Learned ASJ. Reliance has
been placed, by the Learned ASJ, for arriving at his decision, on the well-known
judgment of the Supreme Court. Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I, (1978) 1 SCC 248, which
holds the right to travel abroad to be a fundamental right, which cannot be cur-
tailed save and except in accordance with due process sanctioned by law. In the
circumstances of the present case, Learned ASJ has held that there was no justifi-
cation to interfere with the exercise of discretion, by the Learned CMM, in allow-
ing the respondent to travel abroad, subject to the conditions imposed in that
regard.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the DRI has approached this Court by way of the
present petition.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  143