TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s involved in import and export business. According to him, his business requirements made him to travel abroad quite frequently. In 2011, he was named as an accused in FIR No. RC/220/2011/E/0007 ("FIR") u/s 120B r/w 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of the 3rd respondent. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No .07 of 2012 on 31.10.2012 by the learned Special Judge, CBI at Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. Pending trial, the petitioner was also granted bail on 22.01.2013 on furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/-. According to the petitioner, there was no condition imposed for grant of bail, particularly there was no travel restr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the 5th respondent. The petitioner raised several points in the appeal. However, without considering all those points raised in the appeal in proper perspective, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 06.02.2017, with an observation that the petitioner may move before the concerned Court where the criminal case was pending for release of his passport. The said order passed by the 1st and 5th respondent impounding the passport and confirming of the same are impugned in the present proceedings. 5. On notice, Mrs. S. Srimathy, the learned counsel appeared for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and a counter affidavit has also been filed. 6. Shri. N.R. Elango, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng order as there was no proper consideration of the points raised by the petitioner in the appeal. The appellate authority has merely summarized the pendency of the prosecution against the petitioner and therefore, justified the order passed by the 1st respondent impounding the passport of the petitioner. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the 5th respondent has wrongly concluded that the petitioner may approach the Court concerned where the case is pending for getting necessary permission for travelling abroad. According to the learned Senior Counsel, such a contingency does not arise in view of the fact that the petitioner has been out on bail for several years and no conditions were imposed by the Criminal court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act, 1967. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5, petitioner's case falls squarely within the definition of Section 10(3)(e) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 and therefore, the action impounding the passport of the petitioner was in order. According to the learned counsel, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal and also observed that in case the petitioner wants to travel abroad it is always open to him to obtain necessary permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the orders passed by the first and fifth respondents and therefore, urged this Court to dismiss this writ petition as devoid of merits and substance. 10. I have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her by the first respondent or 5th respondent. More over, no reason has been spelt out in the impugned order that there is any possibility of petitioner fleeing the country escaping from the clutches of law. Such an apprehension on the part of the respondents has not been either explicitly or implicitly found in the order passed by the 1st and 5th respondent. Such being the case, the order passed by the 1st respondent impounding the passport without any legally acceptable reason and without any independent application of mind cannot be sustained. Further, the appellate authority who sit in appeal against the order passed by the original authority also seems to have not appreciated the independent responsibility in adjudicating the appeal an....