Madras High Court
Mageswaran vs State Represented By on 28 August, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.492 and 494 of 2019
Mageswaran ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.492 of 2019
Suresh ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.494 of 2019
Vs
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB/SPE,
Madurai.
(R.C.No.229/2018 A 0001) ... Respondent in both Crl.R.Cs.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.492 of 2019: Petition filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the
records and set aside the order dated 12.12.2018 passed in
Cr.M.P.No.2720 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge for CBI Cases), Madurai,
Madurai District.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.494 of 2019: Petition filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the
records and set aside the order dated 12.12.2018 passed in
Cr.M.P.No.2719 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge for CBI Cases), Madurai,
Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.N.Nagendiran
(in both Crl.R.Cs.) Special Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
COMMON OREDER
The petitioners herein have been named as accused in
R.C.No.229/2018 A 0001 registered on the file of the respondent.
2.The allegation against the petitioners is that they have
been acting as carrier of smuggled goods from foreign countries to
India and that, the named public officials have allowed them to gain
entry without payment of appropriate customs duty. The petitioners
were arrested on 06.08.2018. They were subsequently enlarged on
bail on 11.09.2019. The petitioners are Srilankan Citizens. As per
the conditions stipulated in the order granting bail, they are
presently residing at Coimbatore. The petitioners want to go back
to Srilanka for a period of one month. They give an undertaking that
they will return to India thereafter and only with the permission of
this Court, they would leave the country. Since the petitioners'
passports have already been surrendered and are in Court custody,
they filed the petitions before the Court below seeking return of
their passports. But then, the petitioners' request was rejected.
Challenging the same, these revision cases have been filed.
3. The learned Special Public Proseuctor appearing for CBI
http://www.judis.nic.inCases would strongly oppose the petitioner's request principally on
3
the ground that if the petitioners are allowed to go to Srilanka, they
would not return. He reminded before this Court that there are
several such instances of abscondence by Srilankan Citizens. He
submitted that the case on hand is a serious one, in which, the
customs official have been named as accused.
4. To allay the concern of the prosecution, this Court
suggested to the petitioner's counsel to come out with some
workable arrangement. This Court also wanted the petitioners to
offer a substantial surety.
5. When the case was taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as far as A12-
Mageswaran is concerned, his brother-in-law will stand as surety
and offer a property document. The value of the property is said to
be Rs.1,00,000/-. As regards A13-Suresh is concerned, one Ravi is
willing to stand as surety. He will offer a title document that is
worth about Rs.45,000/-. Both the petitioners shall execute special
vakalat authorising Thiru.M.Jesu Paulraj (M.S.No.425/1975) to
appear on their behalf. This will be a special vakalat under Section
205 of Cr.P.C. The counsel will given an undertaking before the
Court below that at no point of time, he would revoke the vakalat.
http://www.judis.nic.inLikewise, the petitioners herein will also file an affidavit undertaking
4
that the vakalat will not be revoked by them, unless they come back
to India and present an application in person before the trial Court.
6. It is also seen that there is an extradition treaty
between India and Srilanka. I am therefore of the view that even if
the petitioners do not come back, the provisions of the said treaty
can be very well invoked. The petitioners are having families only in
Srilanka. The petitioners shall furnish the complete details as
regards their Srilanka residence.
7. I am of the view that in view of the aforesaid
arrangement, the prosecution ought not to worry that the
prosecution will be stalled, if the petitioners herein abscond. The
orders impugned in this revision petitions are set aside. The
learned trial Judge shall return the passports of the petitioners to
them. The learned trial Judge shall also permit the petitioners herein
to travel to Srilanka for a period of one month. The revision
petitions are allowed.
28.08.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmi
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
To
1.The Second Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge
for CBI Cases), Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB/SPE,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.492 and 494 of 2019 28.08.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in