Point of Law: Foreign citizen - Confiscation of the case property i.e foreign currency from possession – Permission to travel on deposit of 50% of seized currency justified

JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.

1. By virtue of this petition, filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner is seeking setting aside of the order dated 10.2.2021 passed by Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition 09/2021.

2. It is alleged that on the basis of some specific information, five passengers namely Chen Po Shuo, Wang Wei Ting, Liao Kuan Hua, Ms. Chen Hsui Yun and Ms. Chan Kai Li, holder of Republic of China (Taiwan) would be departing from IGI Airport, T-3, New Delhi by Air India Flight No. AI 310 to Hong Kong with its Scheduled departure at 2305 hrs on 27.08.2019. It is alleged that as per the said information, the said passengers would be carrying huge quantity of foreign currency on their persons or in hand baggage or in their checked-in-baggage, and would attempt to smuggle out the same. It is alleged that the respondent officers reached at T-3 IGI Airport and intercepted the above mentioned 5 passengers at Boarding Gate No. 15. It is alleged that their checked-in-baggage was searched and a total of USD 4,49,600 equivalent to Indian Rs. 3,25,51,040 was recovered. The said amount was seized under the Panchnama dated 27/28.8.2019 and seized under seizure memo dated 28.8.2019. It is alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 65,00,000/- in her check-in-baggage. It is averred that petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.10.2019 by learned CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi imposing the condition that petitioner would not travel abroad without the permission of the court. It is averred that petitioner filed an application seeking release of her passport, which was dismissed by learned CMM vide order dated 10.12.2019. Thereafter, another application was filed by the petitioner seeking release of passport, which was allowed vide order dated 8.6.2020 by learned CMM Patiala House Courts. The said order was challenged by the respondent-Department before the learned District and Sessions Judge, PHC, New Delhi, and vide order dated 10.7.2020 the order of learned MM was set aside by the Session Judge. It is averred that due to some miscommunication between the petitioner and her previous counsel, the petitioner was not aware about the order dated 10.7.2020, by virtue of which, the order dated 8.6.2020 was set aside. Therefore, due to inadvertence the new counsel engaged by the petitioner moved another application on behalf of petitioner seeking release of passport on the basis of the order 8.6.2020. It is averred that the application for release was allowed vide order dated 21.8.2020 on furnishing an FDR in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The said order was assailed by the department before the Sessions Court and when notice was issued to the respondent, the counsel inspected the court file and found the above order dated 10.7.2020. So, on realizing the inadvertent mistake the same was informed to the Court, therefore, the Session Court set aside the order dated 21.8.2020.

3. It is further averred that the petitioner, thereafter, filed an application seeking permission to go abroad to her native country for a period of six months as the petitioner is a foreign national, and is facing immense financial hardship. She has no accommodation in India. It is averred that vide order dated 18.12.2020, learned CMM, PHC, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petitioner to visit abroad for a period of six months on certain conditions. The said order of learned CMM was challenged by the Department-respondent before the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, and vide order dated 10.2.2021, Sessions Court had set aside the order granting permission to the petitioner to abroad.

4. The respondent-Department has filed reply. In reply, it is averred that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is further submitted that petitioner is a foreigner so she has no interest in India and in cas