Court Upholds Right to Travel Abroad, Rejects DRI Challenge

The court upheld the respondent's fundamental right to travel abroad, dismissing the challenge by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) against the permission granted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) and Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ). The respondent was allowed to travel for two months with specified conditions, including reporting to the Indian Embassy in Dubai every 10 days and returning the passport promptly. The court found no reason to impose additional conditions requested by DRI, emphasizing the respondent's compliance with the terms set by the court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Permission to travel abroad granted by the learned CMM and ASJ.
2. Challenge by DRI against the order allowing travel abroad.
3. Fundamental right to travel abroad.
4. Conditions imposed on the respondent for traveling abroad.
5. Request for additional conditions by DRI.
6. Requirement for the respondent to register presence at the Indian Embassy in Dubai.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), challenged the orders passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) allowing the respondent, facing trial under the Customs Act, to travel abroad. The respondent, holding an Indian passport, sought permission to travel due to family and business reasons.

2. The learned ASJ dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition by DRI, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I, which upholds the right to travel abroad as a fundamental right. The ASJ found no justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CMM in permitting the respondent to travel abroad with specified conditions.

3. The DRI contended that the conditions imposed for travel were insufficient given the seriousness of the charges against the respondent related to smuggling activities. However, the court found no grounds to interfere with the CMM's decision, noting that the respondent had provided necessary details and was represented by authorized counsel.

4. The court directed the respondent to travel abroad for two months, returning the passport within a week. The respondent was required to report to the Indian Embassy in Dubai every 10 days and return to India before the expiry of the two-month period. Failure to comply would result in the order being vacated.

5. While the court did not impose additional conditions requested by DRI, it acknowledged the need for the respondent to periodically register his presence at the Indian Embassy in Dubai, ensuring compliance with the terms of travel.

6. The judgment balanced the respondent's right to travel with the concerns raised by DRI, ultimately allowing travel with specific conditions to address the ongoing legal proceedings and the respondent's obligations during the period of travel.

---