CHANDRASWAMI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sometime in the month of September, 1987, one Lakhubhai Pathak. a non-resident Indian, residing in London forwarded his complaint to the High Commisioner of India, against Shri Chandraswami and his associate/Secretary Shri K. L. Aggarwal .for dishonestly inducing him to part with two cheques totalling US $ 1,00,000 in a New York hotel on January 4, 1984, as consideration for obtaining some contract for the complainant. The said complaint was forwarded to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in or about October 1987 on the basis of which an FIR u/s 420 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. was registered.

(2.) Both the accused persons were arrested and later on granted bail by the court by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 17-2-1988, with the condition that they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. Later on, they moved an application for modification of the order to the extent that they be permitted to go abroad for teaching the tenets of Hinduism and Indian cultural values in various countries. The said application was rejected by the A.C.M.M. on 10-3-1988. Both the petitioners then moved this court in Crl. M(M) 447/88 and 448 /88 respectively for the same relief which application was allowed and they were permitted to travel abroad for a period of 2 months commencing from August 17, 1988, on certain terms and conditions incorporated in the order. Thereafter, from time to time, the petitioners have been moving such like applications for the extension of their stay abroad on number of grounds which applications have been allowed. The last extension for a period of six months was given by order dated 3-1-1990 in Crl. M.119 and 120 of 1990. That period is coming to an end on 2nd August, 1990.

(3.) The applicant Chandraswami has moved the present petition seeking an extension of time for a period of one year from 2-8-1990 to remain abroad subject to any terms and conditions which this Court may like to impose. Though the respondent CBI has not filed the reply, but Shri Rajiv Nayyar, Advocate, appearing for the respondent has strongly opposed the prayer.