Delhi District Court
Avtar Singh Bedi vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 1 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR II
SPECIAL JUDGE/NDPS, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
Case No. Cr.Rev/281/2018
Avtar Singh Bedi Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Avtar Singh Bedi
S/o Sh. Jagjeet Singh Bedi
R/o B3/8, Third Floor,
Block - 3, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi
.........................Revisionist
Versus
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Headquarters
Drum Shaped Building
ITO, New Delhi
Through
Shri Hitesh Chhawala
Intelligence Officer
.....................Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.08.2018 DATE OF RESERVING ORDER: 01.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.12.2018
1. This is a petition U/s 397 Cr. PC r/w section 439 (1) (b) Cr. PC filed on behalf of the revisionist for recalling/modification of the condition Case No. Cr.Rev/281/2018 Avtar Singh Bedi Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Page No. 1 of 6 of bail imposed upon him by Ld. CMM vide order dated 08.05.2018 wherein the accused/revisionist was directed to surrender his passport and was restrained from travelling abroad without permission of the Court.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the present complaint emanating from the search of an import consignment dated 21.06.2012. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigated the goods imported in two containers at ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The bill of entry no. 7140848 dated 18.06.2012 was filed by M/s Mahadev Trading House (Prop. Sh. Vijay Sharma) and bill of entry no. 7140855 dated 18.06.2012 was filed by M/s Avtar International (Prop. Sh. Sunil Kumar) both bill of entries were filed by CHA Sh. Tapasvi Singh of Abhinav Cargo.
4. That in the above noted investigation; the present revisionist was also summoned by DRI. The accused/revisionist appeared before the DRI to tender his statement (s) under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. During the investigation in which the accused revisionist fully cooperated, however, he was never arrested anytime.
5. That Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the basis of a sanction granted by the Additional Director General, DRI, filed a complaint against 8 accused persons in the complaint case in the Court of the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, the Case No. Cr.Rev/281/2018 Avtar Singh Bedi Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Page No. 2 of 6 present revisionist being accused no. 5 in the same.
6. After taking cognizance of the offences, Ld. CMM was pleased to issue summons to the revisionist to appear in the court. On 08.05.2018, the accused/revisionist appeared in the court alongwith his Counsel and moved an application for grant of bail. The accused/revisionist was directed to furnish a personal bond/surety bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/ and same was done immediately. The bail bonds were accepted however when the revisionist obtained certified copy of the bail order, the accused/revisionist came to know that the Ld. CMM has imposed the condition vide which, he was directed to surrender his passport and also restrained from travelling abroad without permission of the court.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused/revisionist has approached this court. It is submitted that directions for surrender of passport and restrain against his travel tantamount to impounding of the passport by the court and said directions could not have been passed in the bail order. That even otherwise as the accused/revisionist has been summoned by the court, he was entitled to bail as a matter of right because he was never arrested during the investigation. At the time of accepting of bail bonds, no such condition pertaining to surrender of passport and restraining from travelling abroad were communicated to the accused. That the accused/revisionist has to visit various countries for business purposes.
8. I have gone through the entire record.
Case No. Cr.Rev/281/2018 Avtar Singh Bedi Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Page No. 3 of 6
9. The revisionist in the present matter was never arrested during investigation. After taking cognizance, Ld. CMM summoned the accused/revisionist Avtar Singh Bedi. Ld. CMM had admitted the revisionist to court bail however the condition for surrender of his passport was imposed alongwith restriction not to leave the country without permission of the court.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the matter, reference can be made to observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Suresh Nanda Vs CBI wherein it was observed as under:
"13. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C. if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10 (3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 Cr.P.C.), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10 (3) of the Act. It is thereafter the passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a Case No. Cr.Rev/281/2018 Avtar Singh Bedi Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Page No. 4 of 6 party vide State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei [Air 1967 SC 1269].
14.........
15. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104 Cr. PC states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a passport is provided for in Section 10 (3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg.
133). This principle is expressed in the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr. PC though it can impound any other document or thing."
11. Further similar issues has arisen before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana, Criminal Misc. No. M42638 of 2018 and Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the condition imposed by Ld. Additional Session Judge directing the accused to surrender his passport.
12. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, it is well settled law that the court cannot direct the applicant/accused to surrender his passport. Thus, the condition imposed upon the revisionist by Ld. CMM is uncalled for. The bail order dated 08.05.2018 is modified to Case No. Cr.Rev/281/2018 Avtar Singh Bedi Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Page No. 5 of 6 the said extent.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Revision petition record be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SUDESH KUMAR II)
ON 01.12.2018 SPECIAL JUDGE/NDPS
NEW DELHI
Case No. Cr.Rev/281/2018
Avtar Singh Bedi Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Page No. 6 of 6