AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Respondent No. 1 is accused No. 19 in a case filed by the Collector of Central Excise being Criminal Case No. 132/CW/1986 in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, and which is now pending in the 3rd Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, bearing Criminal Case No. 38/CW/1989. The case is essentially against M/s. Voltas Ltd. and 27 others. Respondent No. 1 was the Commercial Manager and he was one of the main accused in the case. It is an admitted position that the other accused are the members of the Board of Voltas Ltd. and other office-bearers of the said company. The case is on the allegation that the accused have evaded excise to the tune of Rs. 6,32,86,400/- and that thereby they have defrauded the Central Excise of the legitimate excise duty. The case is pending since about 1986 and according Mr. Samant the case might be taken up for hearing any moment. On the other hand, according to Mr. Bhat (who is appearing for respondent No. 1), on account of congestion of work load in the lower Court, the case might not be taken up immediately.
Respondent No. 1 made an application on or about January 2, 1989, praying that he may be permitted to go abroad for a period of two years from February 15, 1989, as he has secured a job for a period of two years with a company belonging to Chanrai group.
After hearing both the sides the learned Magistrate by his order dated January 30, 1989 granted the permission, but subject to certain conditions. The operative part of the order is as follows :
"I order that accused No. 19 should get the consent of the present surety to go out of India. Thereafter accused No. 19 to give a Bond of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only) with the one surety in the like amount or Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) cash deposit as additional surety. On this accused is permitted to go out of India for a period of 6 (six) months on the conditions that his authorised Advocate will be present on each occasion and will go on with the matter. In case the matter goes on further, Accused No. 19 to give undertaking that in case the Court so desires, he will remain present in the Court any time even during the period of six months for the purpose of the trial. This order to be effective from 8-2-1989."
The present application by the Central Excise is against the said order.
Respondent No. 1 has also filed criminal writ petition No. 150 of 1989 in which has challenged the order imposing conditions mentioned therein as ultra vires the Constitution and he has consequently prayed that he should be allowed to go out of India on his executing a bail-bound for Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like amount and impliedly suggesting that there should be in conditions.
The matter has been at length. Initially the contention was that the order would fall within the scope of Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After some discussion, Mr. Samant conceded that technically the order would not fall within the scope of Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, having regard to the condition that the case may have to go on in the absence of the accused subject to the Advocate of respondent No. 1 remaining present, the order could be considered virtually as an order u/s 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Developing this line of thinking, Mr. Samant as also Mr. Jaisinghani, who appeared for Union of India, in the writ petition field by respondent No. 1, submitted that the order is not in the interest of justice.
Broadly, the application, falls under the provisions relating to grant of bail and release of an accused on a surety bond or on any other terms and conditions. In the present case, initially the learned Magistrate had a warrant bailable in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as against respondent No. 1. Since respondent No. 1 desired to go out of India because he was getting a job and since the case was pending and in order to ensure his presence in the Court, the learned Magistrate had to naturally modify the conditions relating to bail. It is in that sense the learned Magistrate modified the order by granting the application and in that order the learned Magistrate stated that respondent No. 1 should either furnish a bail in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount or in the alternative he should furnish a case deposit Rs. 4,00,000/- as security. He has also imposed other conditions. In other words and in effect, this accused has been given a fresh bond and bail and in that sense he has been allowed to go out of India.
In all such cases it is not that once a case is registered against an accused person, he cannot be allowed to go out of the jurisdiction of the Court at all. It is well known that these days the cases do not get over within a short time and if any such thinking is permitted it might as well mean confinement of the accused without trail for years, which is patently improper and illegal. Therefore, each case has to be considered on its own merits and when accused makes an application for the purpose of leaving the jurisdiction of the Court, may be out of Bombay, may be outside India, such an application has to be considered on its merit and the facts and circumstances of each case.
Therefore, the only question in the present case is as to whether the order is sufficient as to ensure the presence of the accused at the time of the trial. In the present case respondent No. 1 has stated on oath that he is prepared to give an undertaking that he would come back as and when required by the learned Magistrate for the purpose of the trial. He has also stated that he is prepared to submit himself to such terms and conditions as the Court thinks proper for the purpose of granting such application. Now, the question is as to whether we can accept the word of the accused.
On the other hand Mr. Samant as also Mr. Jaisinghani submitted that once the accused goes away he may not come back at all. This assertion has been made on the basis that this accused is one of the main accused in the case as according to the prosecution he was the brain behind the evasion of excise duty by M/s. Voltas Ltd.
Mr. Bhat submitted that respondent No. 1 is a young man of about 30 years with a brilliant academic career. He joined the department concerned in the Voltas Ltd. sometimes in 1984 and on account of his ability and merit he has risen high in the said company, and at present, of course, he is getting a chance to go abroad to better his prospects. The question is whether just because the case is pending, such an opportunity to a young man can be denied.
Apart from the assertion on the part of the prosecution that he would not come back for which there is no material, I find no justification whatsoever for setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. He has imposed fairly reasonable conditions which should ensure his presence as and when required. He has also imposed a condition that in case the trial has to proceed, the trial need not be held up on account of the absence of respondent No. 1 and for that purpose he has made it clear that his advocate would remain present and the case would go on as against the accused. However, after some discussion I think I should add two additional conditions which would ensure his presence as and when required. The two conditions would be that before the accused leaves the country he must get a fresh letter of appointment from the appointing authority (not from any agent in India) and that he should also get a letter from the appointing authority that they aware of the fact that he is involved in a Criminal Case No. 38/CW/89 and that the condition of the bond requires him to come back to India within a period of six months and or as and when required by the learned Magistrate. If these two conditions are added to the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate, I think no prejudice would be caused to either party.
I, therefore, pass the following order :
The order of the learned Magistrate dated January 30, 1989 stands. There will be two additional conditions viz., (1) Respondent No. 1 should get a fresh letter of appointment from the company where he was getting an appointment and such a letter should be furnished to the Collector of Central Excise, eight days before his actual departure from India.
(2) Similarly, he should also get a letter from the appointing authority of the company in which he is getting an appointment (not from any Indian agent) stating that they are aware of the fact that respondent No. 1 is involved in case No. 38/CW/89, presently pending in the 3rd Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay and that he has been allowed to go out of India on a bond and that the bond requires that he is required to come back to India for the purpose of trial after a period of six months or earlier or as and when required by the Court and that they would permit him to come back to India as per the bond. Such a letter should also be furnished to the Central Excise, eight days before the actual departure of respondent No. 1 from India.
Subject to the above, this revision application stands disposed of Rule is discharge.