2022 Supreme(Mad) 3610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Tangkeswaran & Another - Appellant
Versus
Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Coimbatore - Respondent
Crl.R.C. Nos. 1136 & 1137 of 2022
Decided On : 16-09-2022
For the Petitioners:B. Kumar, Senior Counsel for B. Satish Sundar, Advocate. For the Respondent: N.P. Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Customs Authorities did not have the power to seize or impound the passports of foreign nationals under the Customs Act or the Passports Act, the Criminal Court had the power to withhold or impound the passports of foreign nationals facing serious charges and likely to flee from justice.
Headnote:
Passport - Smuggling - Customs Act, 1944 - Sections 110, 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) - Passports Act, 1967 - Section 10 - [KEYWORD] - Smuggling - 110, 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 10
Fact of the Case:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received information about Malaysian passengers likely to smuggle gold into India. Upon search, gold bars were found in the bags of two Malaysian nationals. After being released on bail, the nationals filed for the return of their passports, which was resisted by the prosecution. The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the applications, leading to the filing of the present revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Customs Authorities did not have the power to seize or impound the passports of the foreign nationals under the Customs Act or the Passports Act. However, considering the seriousness of the charges and the likelihood of the petitioners fleeing justice, the court upheld the decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to withhold the passports. The court directed the expeditious disposal of the criminal case against the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of withholding the passports of foreign nationals facing criminal charges for smuggling, and the authority of the Customs Authorities to seize or impound passports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the Customs Authorities did not have the power to seize or impound the passports under the Customs Act or the Passports Act, the Criminal Court had the power to withhold or impound the passports of foreign nationals facing serious charges and likely to flee from justice. The court also highlighted the options available to the Customs Authorities under the Foreigners Act to refuse leave to the foreign nationals or persuade the Criminal Court to impound or withhold the passports.
Final Decision: The revisions were dismissed, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to dispose of the criminal case expeditiously. The petitioners were precluded from leaving for their own country.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Crl.R.C.No.1136 of 2022: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in and connected with the CMP.No.20975 of 2022 in F.No.DRI/CRU/VIII/48/ENQ-1/INT-2/2022-CBE on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore at 01.08.2022 and set aside the same and cause return of the Malaysian Passport bearing No.A55506477;
Crl.R.C.No.1137 of 2022: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in and connected with the CMP.No.20974 of 2022 in F.No.DRI/CRU/VIII/48/ENQ-1/INT-2/2022-CBE on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore at 01.08.2022 and set aside the same and cause return of the Malaysian Passport bearing No.A55506479.)
1. On 29.04.2022, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Coimbatore received a secret information that four Malaysian passengers, traveling by Scoot Airlines, Flight No.TR540 from Singapore to Coimbatore are likely to carry Gold with an intent to smuggle it to India without payment of the applicable customs duty. Upon such information, surveillance was monitored and the four passengers were identified and upon search, there was nothing found in respect of two passengers and they were allowed to go, while, in respect of Tangkeswaran, bearing Malaysian Passport No.A55506477 and one Nandhini Tangkeswaran bearing of Malaysian Passport No.A55506479, in two parcels in their bags, covered with white color adhesive tapes, were found to be gold bars weighing 2.1kgs each, totaling to 4.2kgs were seized. Before the seizure, the said persons answered that they did not have any such material with them. Therefore, the said persons were arrested and remanded to custody, pending adjudication proceedings as well as pending criminal prosecution by the authorities under the Customs Act.
2. While so, after being released on bail, the said two Malaysian nationals have filed Crl.M.P.Nos.20974 and 20975 of 2022 for return of their respective passports to them. The same was resisted by the respondent / prosecution on the ground that the petitioners have to face the criminal prosecution and being Malaysian nationals, the passports cannot be returned to them as they would flee justice. After considering the materials on record and the submissions on either side, by an order dated 01.078.2022, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are filed.
3. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the prosecution.
4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that this is a case in which the petitioners are alleged to have brought in 2.1kgs of Gold each and the allegation is that they have evaded duty. Therefore, the said Gold, weighing 4.2kgs are already seized by the authorities and therefore, it would be in their best interest to appear in the adjudication proceedings as even as per the prosecution the same is of the total value of Rs.4.58 crores. Further, even though they are foreign nationals, they are persons of Indian origin having connections and roots in India and therefore, will not flee justice and even if allowed to go back to their country, will come back and face the trial. It may be seen for the said violation, they are forcibly living in India from 29.04.2022 onwards. In this factual background, learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the instant case, there is no bail condition which was imposed on the petitioners/accused to surrender the passports. The learned Senior Counsel would also take this Court to the bail orders granted from which it is clear that there is no condition imposed by the Bail Court. Once the passports are not surrendered by the petitioners, pursuant to any directions of the Court in bail order, then, absolutely the respondents, namely, the Customs Autho