Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 01.06.2023
% Pronounced on : 02.08.2023
+ CRL.M.C. 666/2023
SANJAY JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Mukul
Malik, Mr. Pankush Goyal and Mr.
Divyanshu Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam S Sharma, SPP for CBI
with Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Ms.
Harpreet Kalsi, Mr. Abhishek Batra
and Mr. Ripudaman Sharma,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions for modification in the order
dated 27.10.2022 passed by the Ld. CMM, Rouse Avenue District
Court, New Delhi and further no objection for renewal of passport of
the Petitioner for the period of 10 years.
2. Heard.
3. Records perused.
4. It was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that Ld. CMM
vide impugned order dated 27.10.2022 granted the no objection for
renewal of passport but only for one year on the ground that there
CRL.M.C. 666/2023 1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:INDU BHATTI
Signing Date:04.08.2023
17:46:46
were multiple cases pending against the present petitioner. It was
further urged by him that on the same date i.e., 27.10.2022 another
application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to travel abroad
was allowed, which itself shows that the petitioner is not a flight risk.
It was further urged that if the petitioner will apply again and again
after every passing year, this would cause administrative
inconvenience. It was further urged that various courts including the
Court of Sessions and Ld. CMM have granted no objection for
renewal of passport for a period of 10 years to the petitioner (ref. ED
vs Suryavinayak Industries Ltd. & Ors. CC No. 23/2017 order
dated 24.11.2022 ; CBI vs M/s Suryavinayak Industries Ltd. & Ors.
CC no. 21/2019 order dated 24.11.2022 ; ITO vs Sanjay Jain Ct.
Case No. 5082/2017 ).
5. Counter arguments were advanced by SPP for CBI to the
averments made by the petitioner. It was urged that the present
petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts and further it was
urged that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides that the
authority shall refuse to issue passport for visiting any foreign
country. It was further urged that notification dated 25.08.1993 issued
by Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India clearly mentions
that if the court specifies the period for which the passport has to be
issued, the passport has to be issued for the said period and if no
period is specified by the court, the passport shall be issued for a
period of one year. It was further argued that petitioner is an accused
of a white collar crime involving huge sum of money.
6. In Nimmagadda Prasad Vs Central Bureau of Investigation ,
(2013) 7 SCC 466 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that –
CRL.M.C. 666/2023 2 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:INDU BHATTI
Signing Date:04.08.2023
17:46:46
"Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach. The economic offence
having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as
a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a
whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial
health of the country."
7. In the instant case, for proper adjudication it is necessary to
look into the office memorandum dated 10.10.2019 bearing no.
VI/401/1/5/2019 issued by Ministry of External Affairs, Government
of India. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows :-
2. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 is reproduced below for
reference:
GSR 570(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and
in supersession of the notification of the Government of
India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. GSR 298(E)
dated the 14 April 1976, the Central Government, being of
the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so,
hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings
in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by
them are pending before a criminal court in India and who
produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to
depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of
Clause () of sub- section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act,
subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be
issued--
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to
above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport
has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the
travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall
be issued for a period of one year:
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a
period less than one year, but does not specify the period
validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one
year:
(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a
period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity
CRL.M.C. 666/2023 3 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:INDU BHATTI
Signing Date:04.08.2023
17:46:46
of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the
period of travel abroad specified in the order.
8. Considering the arguments advanced by both the sides; taking
account of the office memorandum/ notification issued by Ministry of
External Affairs, Government of India alongwith the relevant
provisions of Passport Act; seriousness of the allegations against the
petitioner, this court do not find any infirmity in the order dated
27.10.2022. Further, a perusal of the notification dated 25.08.1993
issued by Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, reveals
that in a case where the court specifies the period for which the
passport has to be issued, then it is to be issued for such period only
and if no such period is mentioned by the Court, the passport shall be
issued for a period of one year only. Accordingly, the present petition
stands dismissed and disposed of, maintaining the order dated
27.10.2022 passed by the Ld. CMM, Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi.
9. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
AUGUST 2, 2023
p
CRL.M.C. 666/2023 4 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:INDU BHATTI
Signing Date:04.08.2023
17:46:46