Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioners being the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Crl. R.P. No. 772/2007 and Enforcement Directorate in Crl. R.P. Nos. 753/2007 to 761/2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said petitioners) are aggrieved by the Orders dated 06-12-2007 and 13-12-2007 passed by the Ld. CMM and Ld. ACMM respectively allowing the applications of the respondent seeking permission to go abroad for a period of 30 days from 20-12-2007 to 20-01-2008 in different complaint cases pending before the Ld. CMM and Ld. ACMM pertaining to the violations of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short FERA) and Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 (in short FCRA). To appreciate the merits of the case, it would be pertinent to pen down a brief background of the cases.

Facts:

2. It is the case of the petitioners that with the adjudication proceedings pending against the respondent in a number of cases for such violations as mentioned aforesaid, a penalty of Rs. 9.65 crores was imposed on the respondent to which not even a single penny has been deposited by the respondent till date. An SLP to the same effect is also pending. Apart from this, there have been separate criminal complaints filed by the petitioners for such violations. While the respondent has been enlarged on conditional bail in these pending cases against him, one of the conditions imposed on him is that the respondent shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court and if he even desires to go out of Delhi, he shall give prior intimation to the said petitioner department about his programme and intimate the addresses and places where he could be contacted.

3. It is stated that similar requests like the present one to go abroad have been made by the respondent in the past where sometimes the respondent has been allowed while the other times declined. Such request was last made before the Ld. ACMM in 2004, when the CBI intervened and opposed the said application along with the Enforcement Department. One of the grounds for rejecting the said application was the apprehension of the said petitioners that the respondent may flee from the country and may not return back to face the trial in the enforcement cases and investigation in respect of conspiracy in Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case. The Ld. ACMM observed that the allegations made against the respondent were serious in nature and the possibility of his not returning back could not be ruled out. It was also observed that the respondent had failed to adduce any material to authenticate or substantiate his need to go abroad. In consequence to this, the respondent filed a writ petition being WP (Crl.) No. 723/2005 before this court. On 06-11-2007, this Court directed the Ld. ACMM to consider the matter only on the merits of each complaint so filed. Accordingly, the two courts were moved by the respondent and after hearing the matter, the Ld. CMM and Ld. ACMM permitted the respondent to go abroad subject to certain conditions. It is these orders to which the petitioners have filed the present revision petitions.

Maintainability

4. The preliminary submission made by the respondent is on the maintainability of such revision petitions. It is the case of the respondent that the orders permitting the respondent to go abroad are interlocutory orders and thereforee, no revision lies against such an order. Whereas, the petitioners plead that such orders are not interlocutory orders but final orders.

5. The noteworthy submissions by the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG for short) in this behalf are that the said orders finally determine the assertion of the respondent that he is entitled to go abroad for a fixed period which makes the nature of such order as final one and not an interlocutory order. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that claim of right to travel abroad is not an important right or liability. The order permitting to travel abroad cannot be said to