BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Brij Bhushan Singal has moved the petition for release of his passport so that he can go abroad in connection with his business affairs. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bhushan Steel Strips Limited, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad (V.P.), which is a public limited company with its registered office at Delhi. As the said company intended setting up another Cold Rolling Plant at the same place which would manufacture the widest range of Cold Rolled Steel Sheets in the country with the latest technology, a proposal for selecting a foreign collaborator had been mooted so that this technology could be obtained. It is also the case of the petitioner that financial assistance had been sought for the two plants from the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd.; and the Industrial Development Bank of India and the said assistance had in principle been cleared. The case of the petitioner further is that he had earlier planned to visit Japan, Korea, Europe and other places with effect from 22nd July, 1994, but in view of the order dated 12th July, 1994 (Annexure P.4) the said programme had been postponed as the Special Judge who was seized of the case, had declined to order the release of the passport to the petitioner. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Handa, learned counsel for the CB.!., in response to the notice issued has urged that vide order dated 14th May, 1994 (Annexure P. 1), the Special Judge while granting bail to the petitioner had imposed certain conditions on him and one of the conditions was that the passport of the accused would stand impounded so that the petitioner and his co-accused could not leave the country during the pendency of the case. Mr. Handa has urged that under the garb of this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) the review of the order passed by the Special Judge could not be made and that the High Court was debarred from interfering with the order of the Special Judge by virtue of the provisions of sections 362 of the Code.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and find that the petition deserves to succeed.