SH. MOHINDER Vs. PRANAV SHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was prosecuted under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. This was based on the allegations that while he was coming from Abu Dhabi via Askabad, he was intercepted at IGI Airport on 28.12.2001 and search was conducted as a result whereof his hand bag and three baggage's ,which were lying unclaimed near the baggage belt No. 6, containing 66 mobile phones, Sony Play Stations, synthetic stones/Chattons, 3 video cameras etc. were allegedly recovered from him. His passport was also seized. Those proceedings have resulted in conviction vide judgment dated 25.4.2005 passed by the learned ACMM and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 15 months. The petitioner has already undergone this imprisonment.

(2.) ADJUDICATION proceedings under the Customs Act were also initiated against the petitioner and penalty of Rs.7.5 lacs was imposed upon him. The petitioner, after undergoing the imprisonment, moved application for release of his passport, which is rejected by the learned ACMM vide order dated 6.5.2005 and challenging that order, present petition is filed. Perusal of the order would show that the reason for dismissal of the application was that according to the learned ACMM, he had no power to release the passport. It may be noted that argument of the respondent was that since the petitioner has not paid the penalty of Rs.7.5 lacs, there was no reason to release the passport.

(3.) IT is clear from the reading of the aforesaid provision that passport could be seized if in the opinion of the competent officer, it would be useful for, or relevant to, any proceedings under this Act. In so far as criminal proceedings are concerned, the same are already over and has resulted in conviction, as mentioned above. As far as penalty, which is imposed upon the petitioner by the adjudicating authority, is concerned, if the same is not paid, the respondent can recover the amount in accordance with the procedure contained in Section 142 of the Customs Act. Since that is a procedure provided, it would be open to the respondent to take appropriate steps in accordance thereto. However, it cannot be said that the passport would be relevant for those proceedings. Therefore, the respondent cannot now continue to hold the passport of the petitioner. The respondent shall accordingly release the passport of the petitioner.