R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code ofcriminal Procedure has been filed on behalf on Raj Kumar Jain for permission to go abroad for a period of six months from time to time with a condition that one visit shall not be for more than 30 days. I have heard Mr. D. C. Mathur, [earned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Lal for the respondent-CBI ( 2 ) IT will be seen that the petitioner Raj Kumar Jain along withothers is facing criminal charges under Section 120-B read with Sections 420and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. in a case which was registered against himand others in the year 1979. namely. State v. V. K. Jain and others. After theregistration of the case a number of years were spent in the investigationbecause the allegations of conspiracy and cheating involved crorers or rupees. During the course of investigation, it was found that co-accused Vinodkumar Jain suffered heavy losses and to cover up those losses he conspiredwith B. S. Aujla and his son Manmohan Singh of Singapore to make quickmoney by illegal means and as a result of that conspiracy it was decided tosink two old ships by man averilla and chdai, after showing thatthe ships had been loaded with genuine cargo at Singapore whereas they wereto carry spurious cargo. Letters of credit were then obtained from Banks bythe accused persons residing in India. They also conspired to get the cargoheavily insured. The conspiracy was to sink those two ships and then cheatinsurance Companies by claiming for insured amount which was really meantto cover the cost and profits of genuine cargo whereas the goods sunk wereto be spurious stuff. It may be further noted that after hearing voluminousarguments in this case, learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered framingof charges vide his detailed order dated 19. 10. 1988 comprising of 209 pagesunder various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Some of the accusedpersons, namely, K. . L. Narang, S. Jaggi and S. K. . Tandon were dischargedbecause charges against them were found to be groundless. Charges wereordered to be framed against V. K. Jain, R. K. Jain and K. L Suri accusedpersons. 10. 1988 comprising of 209 pagesunder various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Some of the accusedpersons, namely, K. . L. Narang, S. Jaggi and S. K. . Tandon were dischargedbecause charges against them were found to be groundless. Charges wereordered to be framed against V. K. Jain, R. K. Jain and K. L Suri accusedpersons. ( 3 ) IT may be noted that one of the accused persons V. K. Jain who isbrother of Raj Kumar Jain, present petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of chargeand also for quashing the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. A stayof the proceedings was granted in that petition by P. K. Bahri, J. vide orderdated 14. 2. 89. This stay was granted with the consent of counsel for CBI. Later on the CBI also filed a revision petition against the same order claiming that the charges against the discharged persons should also have beenframed. In that revision petition also, it is admitted that the proceedings wereordered to be stayed. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, only a few days back, a petition has been moved onbehalf of the CBI for early disposal of these two revision petitions so thatthe case against the petitioner and others could proceed further for finaldetermination. ( 5 ) IN the the background of the above circumstances, we have now tosee whether the petitioner should be permitted time and again to go abroadon account of his business activities. I am of the opinion that the I interest ofthe State and the Society is much higher than the interest of the individualthe petitioner and others are facing serious criminal charges. In pursuanceto the alleged conspiracy one of the co-accused. V. K. Jain is alleged to havereceived 21 US dollars cheques out of the amount of letters of Creditnegotiated by Indian parties. Five cheques of the value of US dollars2,50,000. 00 each were allegedly encashed by V. K. Jain fraudulently duringjuly, 1979 only. When such serious are the charges against the petitioner andother accused persons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should not bepermitted to go abroad at all so long as he and the other co-accused do notshow any interest in the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pendingagainst them since such a long time. The petitioner has been granted thisconcession on a number of occasions in the past. The petitioner has been granted thisconcession on a number of occasions in the past. For example he waspermitted to go abroad first in May, 1987 for a period of 30 days. He wasagain granted this concession in August, 1987 by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter he was permitted to go abroad for a period of 30 days at a timeduring the next six months by order dated 16. 11. 1987. Thereafter he wasgranted similar permission in April, 19 8/12/1988 and May, 1989. This shows that the proceedings are being delayed whereas the accusedpersons are enjoying at the cost of the State and the. Society. It play also benoted that under Section 6 of the Passports Act, the Passport Authority canrefuse to grant a passport to a person who faces proceedings in respect of anoffence alleged to have been committed by him and such proceedings arepending before a criminal court in India. It is rather against the interest ofthe State and Society at large, that the accused persons or any of themshould be permitted to go abroad frequently while the serious criminalcharges drag on for a number of years. Also there are prosecution witnessesin many countries and how can it be guaranteed or rather who will go abroadto verify whether the accused petitioner contracts those witnesses in order towin them over. The witnesses can even. be contacted by long distance telephonecalls about which no records will be available. ( 6 ) TAKING into consideration all the above circumstances, I am ofthe view that at the moment it is not a fit case when the petitioner should bepermitted to go abroad. Petition is, therefore, rejected.