J M JAIN Vs. AHMED SODEK VALID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is apparent that the present Criminal Appeal is not maintainable under any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned order is a permission granted to the first respondent accused to go abroad. Such an order is not appealable. Hence, on the request of Shri Khan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, the same is permitted to be converted into an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE first respondent is facing a prosecution for contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. He is a South African national. On 28/02/1990, on information being received, the Narcotic Control Bureau raided room No. 201 of Hotel Diplomat, Colaba. At the time of the raid the first respondent along with one Shaikh Mohammed Usman was. present. On search, an amount of U. S. $ 2190 in travellers cheques, U. S. $230 and ?150 in currency notes and Rs. 9,63,000/ - and certain incriminating articles were seized. In the statement recorded under Section 40 of FERA, respondent No. 1 stated that he was occupying the said room, that an amount of Rs. 9,50,000 had been delivered to him by the said Shaikh Mohammed Usman for disbursement to various parties in India. The said amount was forwarded by one Dhirubhai of London to one Rajeev Jeeva of Bombay who in turn forwarded the said amount to the first respondent through the aforesaid Shaikh Mohammed Usman. On the aforesaid facts, the first respondent was arrested on 1/03/1990. On 5th March 1990 the firirst respondent was released on bail in the sum of Rs. 1,85,000/ -.

(3.) ON or about 23/03/1990 the first, respondent made an application for permission to go abroad and by the impugned order the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay was persuaded to grant the permission on an additional cash deposit of Rs. 50,000/ -. The first respondent was directed to file the consent of the original surety. The passport of the first respondent was ordered to be returned to him. The said order is annexed at page 8 of the compilation. It shows that the same is a communication of the order to the Enforcement Directorate. It is on a cyclostyled form wherein blanks have been filled in. It is not known whether a separate reasoned order has been passed. It is, however, apparent that the said order was passed without notice to the Enforcement Directorate.