MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner accused Manoj Kumar Sharma has preferred this criminal writ petition with the prayer to modify the order dated 24-4-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan passed in Cr. Revision No. 47/2015 so as to remove the rider of obtaining permission from the learned trial court for each visit to abroad and come back to India.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Rajendra K. Salecha submits that the petitioner accused is an engineering graduate and also MBA from the University of Hull, England having a status of NRI since last 22 years. The petitioner is having trade licence in the name of Ocean Building Maintenance (L.L.C.) from the Government of Dubai and is working at Dubai. The licence is going to expire on 11-3-2016. Therefore, his presence at Dubai is necessary. He submits that a letter dated 18-12-2013 is also received from his sponsor informing that he is required in Dubai full time for all the employees working in the company, especially for their salaries, timely renewal and cancellations of their visas in Labour and Immigration Office to avoid any delay fines and also for renewal of company Trade Licence. He submits that the petitioner came from Dubai and landed at Jaipur Airport and obtained red channel having 70 Gold Biscuit (weighing 8164.80 gms.), which was permissible by Government notification. He submits that a false case was registered against the petitioner u/s 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 in which the petitioner applied for compounding his pending matter before the Chief Commissioner, Customs, New Delhi and it is expected that same may be compounded shortly. He submits that appeal against the adjudication proceedings is also pending. Therefore, the appeal and trial shall take its own time and if the petitioner is not permitted to go UAE, then his whole business will be ruined as well as his family members consisting wife and three children will also be remain unattended. Therefore, the petitioner wants to visit Dubai for his business as well as to look after his wife and children. He submits that vide impugned order dated 24-4-2015, the revisional court quashed and set aside the order dated 10-3-2015 passed by the learned trial court but instead of allowing the application impugned, he remanded the matter back with certain directions and one of the direction that each and every time, he has to seek permission from the learned Magistrate, which is very difficult as it takes considerable time and the petitioner has to visit Dubai.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon on the case of Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali - (2007) 1 SCC 673 , Salman Khan v. State of Rajasthan - 2014 (4) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1746 , Chitrak Satishbai Shah v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 9837/2014, decided on 24-7-2014 by Gujarat High Court and Patel Simaben Arvindbhai v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 16815/2015, decided on 11-9-2015 by Gujarat High Court.