TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsion on 13.09.2019 at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, with a recovery of 1875 gms of gold from Begaim Akynova holder of Khazakistan passport no.8622501 had been considered and the same was declined. Whilst setting aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2021 of the learned CMM, PHC, New Delhi vide which permission was granted to the respondent herein to travel abroad, which order is hereby set aside in toto, it is essential to observe that most unfortunately there is even a representation for the Department i.e. Department of Customs also on the date 06.01.2021 before the learned Trial Court via counsel Mr.Vishal Chadha, who the learned SPP for the Department of Customs, Mr.Satish Aggarwala present today submits is one of the counsel representing the Customs Department before the District Courts. Information be sent to the Chairman, Bar Council of India of the proceedings of the present matter which be sent through the Registrar General of this Court in relation to the manner of which the proceedings in relation to the application filed by Begaim Akynova have been conducted both by the learned counsel for Department of Customs as well as by the learned counsel for the applicant Beg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to travel home moved by the accused Begaim Akynova has been filed by the Department. Be taken on record. Heard. Perused. Considering the facts as mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and applicant / accused Begaim Akynova is permitted to travel home for one year from today i.e. 06.01.2021 to 05.01.2022 subject to the following conditions : 1. that she shall deposit the fine of ₹ 12,00,000/- approximate with the department as fine of ₹ 12 lakhs has been imposed on her by the department. 2. that she will furnish a security amount of ₹ 50,000/- with an undertaking to report back in the Court on or before 06.01.2022 failing which the said amount shall stands forfeited without giving any further notice; 3. that she shall furnish address of her home; 4. that she shall not seek extension of her stay on any ground; 5. that she shall authorize her counsel to receive notice on her behalf during her stay at her home country; 6. that she shall properly instruct her counsel for proceeding further in the case during her outstay and no adjournment shall be sought by her counsel for lack of instruction from her; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to be a fair adjudication and application of mind at the time of disposal of any prayer by a Court. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been a fragrant violation of the judicial comity of Courts and a travesty violation of justice in the instant case with the respondent having flouted all possible norms and the hierarchy of the judicial system. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the very same respondent i.e. Begaim Akynova, holder of Khazakistan passport no.8622501 who is petitioner no.2 in CRL.M.C.1529/2020, which was disposed of vide the judgment of this Court dated 31.08.2020. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said respondent no.2 of that petition i.e. CRL.M.C.1529/2020 with another petitioner therein named Aida Askerbkova, holder of Kyrgyzstan passport no.AC3167256 had both assailed the order dated 30.05.2020 of the learned ASJ-03, New Delhi in CR No. 881/2019 vide which the order dated 10.12.2019 of the learned CMM, PHC, New Delhi had been upheld declining the prayer of Aida Askerbkova, the petitioner no.1 of CRL.M.C.1529/2020 and of petitioner no.2, Begaim Akynova who is the respondent no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who is the counsel for the respondent no.2 even today and has joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing. Mr.Sajan Shankar Prasad, Advocate is indicated to be the counsel for Begaim Akynova, the respondent to the present petition as the applicant of the application filed before the learned CMM, New Delhi which was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 06.01.2021. The record indicates that the application that was filed on behalf of Begaim Akynova, the respondent to the present petition before this Court and the applicant before the learned CMM, New Delhi, filed her application through her counsels Mr.Rohit Kumar Pandey, Advocate and Mr.Sajan Shankar Prasad, Advocate, and as depicted through the appearance in the proceedings in CRL.M.C.1529/2020 vide judgment dated 31.08.2020, whereby the prayer made by Begaim Akynova to travel abroad, is expressly declined, shows the appearance of both Mr.Rohit Kumar Pandey, Advocate and Mr.Sajan Shankar Prasad, Advocate for Begaim Akynova, the present respondent as well before the learned CMM, New Delhi as per the application placed on record as Annexure-F to the present petition which application reads to the effect:- APPL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re she travels to her home. c. It is submitted that the Applicant is bound to stay in India since December 2019, it has been more than 1 year for her in India without having any way out to meet her daily basic needs to survive. d. It is further submitted that the Applicant requires to meet her family member only after depositing the entire penalized amount, there would be no prejudice for the department if the permission is granted for a particular time period only. e. Furthermore, considering the unconductive pandemic situations arise throughout the globe, it is exceedingly difficult for the applicants to meet his day to day needs presently in India. Therefore, she may be allowed for a particular period of time only, in which she can grapple-up with the aforesaid unavoidable circumstances and then return back to India. f. It is further submitted that investigation is already completed, and no further recovery is required at this point of time. Permission to travel her home would not affect the current case in any manner. g. That in a remarkably similar kind of cases, this Hon ble Court recently allowed various Applicants to travel their home in these hard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred a revision petition before the Hon ble Sessions Court considering the excruciating circumstances of the other co-accused Aida Askerbkova, the applicant had chosen not to press on her relief, that the Sessions Court had passed an order denying permission to the applicant to travel to her home but thereafter the applicant has averred in paragraph 5 that the applicant along with the coaccused chose to prefer an appeal under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Delhi High Court, wherein vide order dated 31.08.2020, this Court allowed the accused Aida Askerbkova to travel to her home and subsequently the Tribunal, Commission of Customs has imposed a fine of ₹ 20 lakhs on the applicant. Significantly, there is not an iota or a whisper of any averment in the application that was filed by the applicant before the learned CMM, New Delhi to the effect that the prayer made by the present respondent i.e. the applicant before the learned CMM, New Delhi to travel abroad to her hometown was expressly declined vide order dated 31.08.2020 of this Court in CRL.M.C.1529/2020 vide observations in paragraph 24 thereof. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ads to the effect:- 5. The respondent filed an application dated 16.12.2020, Annexure-F seeking permission to travel home. Interestingly, the copy of the application was served upon a prosecutor, who at no point of time, had dealt with the present matter either before Ld.CMM, New Delhi, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi or this Hon ble Court. The Special Public Prosecutor filed reply date 21.12.2020, Annexure-G. , to submit to the effect that the counsel on whom the application was served had at no time dealt with the proceedings neither before the learned CMM, New Delhi nor before the learned ASJ nor before this Court. Be that as it may, the same itself does not suffice for the learned counsel who put in appearance even on behalf of the Department of Customs on 06.01.2021 before the learned Trial Court, to have not made any inquiries from the Customs Department specifically in view of the averments in paragraph 5 of the application that had been filed on behalf of the respondent dated 16.12.2020 before the learned Trial Court, in as much as, there is not even a whisper of an averment in the application dated 16.12.2020 filed by the applicant thereof i.e. the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
