Page 144 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

366 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

9. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 24th December, 2019, while issuing
notice on this petition, this Court observed that details of address of the respond-
ent, during his stay in Dubai, had already been provided by him in accordance
with the directions, contained in the order dated 11th November, 2019 supra of
the Learned CMM, as affirmed by the Learned ASJ vide order dated 26th No-
vember, 2019 and that the respondent had also provided the details of his au-
thorised Counsel in India, being Mr. Himanshu Lohiya, Office at A-1/11, Satya-
wati Colony, Ashok Vihar-III, Delhi. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had
sought time to take instructions in relation thereto.
10. Today Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respond-
ent had, indeed, provided the aforesaid details, regarding the address at which
he would be residing, during his stay in Dubai, as well as the details of his Coun-
sel in India. He, however, draws my attention to Ground ‘D’ in the portion,
which reads thus :
“D. Inadequate/Insufficient conditions permitting to travel abroad
(i) The respondent claims to be the proprietor of multiple firm in
Dubai trading in huge volumes of gold/gold jewellery annu-
ally. However, the CMM Court vide order dated 11-11-2019
has only imposed a condition of depositing a FDR of
Rs. 3,00,000/- permitting him to travel abroad. It is notewor-
thy, that he is being investigated for active involvement in the
smuggling syndicate associated with smuggling of gold/gold
jewllery into India to the tune of 2-3 Mt tones since 2016.
(ii) Further, the CMM Court in Condition at Sl. No. 3 of the Order
dated 11-11-2019 does not mention to whom the respondent
has to submit the address during his stay abroad. The re-
spondent must be mandated to give the details of his address
during the stay abroad also to the investigative agency along
with a proof of genuineness of the address - e.g. :
sale/purchase agreement, rent agreement, electricity bill etc.
in the name of the accused.
(iii) At Sl. No. 5 of the conditions of the CMM order dated 11-11-
2019, it has been mentioned that the Counsel of the accused to
be authorized to receive the notice during his stay abroad. It is
requested that the respondent shall give the complete details
of his authorized Counsel also to the investigative agency i.e.
DRI.
(iv) Further, during his stay abroad the respondent be mandated
to register his presence in the Indian embassy in Dubai every
fifteen days.”
11. Having noticed the inhibitions expressed in ground ‘D’ of the writ
petition, I am of the opinion that facts of the case do not warrant any interference
with the directions, of the Learned CMM, permitting the respondent to travel
abroad, as upheld by the Learned ASJ. The address of the respondent, during his
stay abroad, has been furnished by the respondent and respondent is also being
represented by his Counsel, whose details have also been provided to the DRI.
12. Moreover, the Learned CMM while dismissing the application for
cancellation of bail vide order dated 25th September, 2019, notes that the Deputy
Director of the DRI, categorically stated, before the Court that the respondent
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  144