Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: … 1 … C.C.No.87/MISC./2023
Exh.01
MHMM180029292023
C.C.No.87/MISC./2023
Shree Mohan Nandkishor
Gupta Vs. KOTAK
MAHINDRA BANK LTD
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 58TH
COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW EXH.01
1. This is an application for granting permission to
travel abroad filed by the applicant/accused.
2. It is contended that the applicant intends to visit
Germany during 1st June, 2023 to 15th July, 2023 to visit his son.
Due to pending cases against the accused, his passport is seized
by the Regional Passport Authority, Surat. He is unable to travel
abroad due to seizure of passport. Hence, this application.
3. The respondent No.1 objected the application vide
his reply Exh.8 on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction
to pass the order as the passport is already seized by the
Regional Passport Authority. The remedy lies before the
appellate authority of Regional Passport Authority, Surat.
4. Respondent No.3 Passport officer, Surat has filed
his reply at Exh.5. The Passport Authority has left the issue of
granting permission to the applicant on court vide section 6 sub
section 2 clause (F) of Passport Act 1967.
5. Heard Advocate Milind Gaware for the applicant
and Advocate A.R.Pargaonkar for respondent No.1.
-- 1 of 2 --
… 2 … C.C.No.87/MISC./2023
Exh.01
6. Before entertaining this application, it is pertinent
to note that the applicant has not given his specific details of
abode at Germany, date of Journey and return journey, the
undertaking to conduct hearing of the case pending against him
in his absence through advocate and relevant assurance to
remain present as and when this court needs his presence before
the court. Secondly, the reply of respondent No.3 Regional
Passport Authority shows that the passport of the applicant was
seized after communicating show cause notice by the appellate
authority to the applicant. His passport is seized on his refusal to
produce the passport before the appellate authority.
7. In the facts and circumstances looking into the
various cases pending against the applicant and not giving the
details of stay at abroad, it would not be just and proper to
allow the applicant to travel abroad. The personal liberty of the
applicant will have to be seen within statutory ambit of four
corners of the law. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
1. The application is rejected with the liberty
to file fresh application giving specific
details of his stay at abroad and
undertaking on affidavit to conduct the
trial through advocate in his absence etc.
2. Order dictated and pronounced in open
court.
Mumbai, (M. P. Saraf)
Dated : 19.06.2023. Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code MH01362
-- 2 of 2 --