Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2019 DIGILAW 584 (SC)

G. S. C. Rao v. State Of U. P.

2019-02-11

ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M.JOSEPH

body2019
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 3333 of 2018. The High Court by its impugned judgment dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant. 4. The appellant filed an application in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4/2018 - CBI v. M/s Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd & Ors. under Section 120-B read with Section 420 and 409 IPC along with 1B/2 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, making a request to permit the appellant to visit Philippines in connection with business. 5. The appellant's case is that a Look Out Circular had been issued against the appellant by the CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi, consequently, the request for permission from the Court was prayed for. The Special Judge, Corruption (CBI) rejected the application on 11.09.2018. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Judge, Corruption (CBI), the Criminal Revision was filed which was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had undertaken several visits abroad from 2015 to 2018. It is further submitted that the appellant had co-operated with the investigations and appeared on the dates whenever he has been called. No charge sheet has yet been filed although FIR was lodged on 22.02.2018. Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on the order passed by this Court on 30.01.2019 in Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 3/2018, where this Court with several conditions permitted the applicant of that case to go abroad. 7. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent submits that the application filed by the appellant was in pursuance to a letter dated 19.07.2018 received from Capiz Sugar Central Inc, Philippines in which a request was made to the Hon'ble Philippine Ambassador to India and Nepal to issue a MULTI ENTRY Visa for one year. The learned ASG submits that in the letter, it was mentioned that his visit to Philippines was expected on 01.08.2018. There is nothing on record which shows that even further the appellant will be required to go to Philippines. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the letter itself indicates that the appellant has to visit Philippines multiple times. The learned ASG submits that in the letter, it was mentioned that his visit to Philippines was expected on 01.08.2018. There is nothing on record which shows that even further the appellant will be required to go to Philippines. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the letter itself indicates that the appellant has to visit Philippines multiple times. Further, he submits that he is still required to go to Philippines and therefore seeks permission to go to Philippines for 10 days. 9. Considering the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the appellant be permitted to visit Philippines for a period of 10 days on the terms and conditions passed by this Court on 30.01.2019 in Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 3/2018. The appellant shall be permitted to visit Philippines for 10 days on following conditions: (i) That the appellant shall file an undertaking before this Court within three days, indicating his flight details and the date of arrival in India. (ii) If the undertaking is not filed, the appellant shall not be allowed to go abroad. (iii) The appellant shall make a Fixed Deposit amounting to Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two crores and fifty lacs only) in the name of the Secretary General of this Court and also deposit a surety of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two crores and fifty lacs only) before the Secretary General of this Court, which will be returned to him after he comes back to the country. (iv) That the appellant shall not open or close any bank account overseas. (v) That the appellant shall not enter into any kind of property transactions abroad. (vi) If the undertaking is not complied with, the appellant shall face such consequences as may be deemed fit and appropriate. 10. In view of the above, the criminal appeal is disposed of.