JUDGMENT
R.L. Gupta, J.
(1) This application under Section 482 of Code, of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of 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, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Lal for the respondent-CBI.
(2) It will be seen that the petitioner Raj Kumar Jain along with others is facing criminal charges under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, In a case which was registered against him and others in the year 1979, namely, State Vs. V. K. Jain and others. After the registration of the case a number of years were spent in the investigation because the allegations of conspiracy and cheating involved crores of rupees. During the course of investigation, it was found that co-accused Vinod Kumar Jam suffered heavy losses and to cover up those losses he conspired with B. S. Aujia and his son Manmohan Singh of Singapore to make quick money by illegal means and as a result of that conspiracy it Was decided to sink two old ships by name ‘AVERILLA’ and “CHDAI’ after showing that the ships had been loaded with genuine cargo at Singapore whereas they were to carry spurious cargo. Letters of credit were then obtained from Banks by the accused persons residing in India. They also conspired to get the cargo heavily insured. The conspiracy was to sink those two ships and then cheat Insurance Companies by claiming for insured amount which was really meant to cover the cost: and profits of genuine cargo whereas the goods sunk were to be spurious stuff. It may be further noted that after hearing volumincus arguments in this case learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered framing of charges vide his detailed order dated 19-10-1988 comprising of 209 pages under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Some of the accused persons, namely, K. L. Narang, S. Jaggi and S. K. Tandon were discharged because charges against them Were found to be groundless. Charges were ordered to be framed against V. K. Jain, R. K. Jain and K. L. Suri accused persons.
(3) It may be noted that one of the accused person V. K. Jain who is brother of Raj Kumar Jain, present petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of charge and also for quashing the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. A stay of the proceeding was granted in that petition by P. K. Bahri, J. vide order dated 14-2-89. This stay was granted with the consent of counsel for CBI. Later on the Cbi also field a revision petition against the same order claiming that the charges against the discharged persons should also have been framed. In that revision petition also, it is admitted that the proceedings were ordered to be stayed.
(4) However, only a few days back, a petition has been moved on behalf of the Cbt for early disposal of these two revision petitions so that the case against the petitioner and others could proceed further for final determination.
(5) In the background of the above circumstances we have now to see whether the petitioner should be permitted time and again to go abroad on account of his business activities. I am of the opinion that the interest of the State and’ the Society is much higher than the interest of the individual. The petitioner and others are facing serious criminal charges. In pursuance to the alleged conspiracy one of the co-accused, V.K. Jain is alleged to have received 21 Us dollars cheques out of the amount of letters of Credit negotiated by Indian parties. Five cheques’ of he value of Us dollars 2,50.000 each were allegedly encashed by V. K. Jain fraudulently during July, 1979 only. When such serious are the charges against the petitioner and other accused persons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should not He permitted to go abroad at all so long as he had the other co-accused do not show any interest in the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against them since such a long time. The petitioner has been granted this concession on a number of occasions in the past. For example he was permitted to go abroad first in May. 1987 for a period of 30 days. He was again 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 time during the next six months by order dated 16-11-1987. Thereafter he was granted similar permission in April, 1988, December, 1988 and May, 1989. This shows that the proceedings are being delayed whereas the accused persons are enjoying at the cost of the State and the Society. It may also be noted that under Section 6 of the Passports Act, the Passport Authority can refuse to grant a passport to a person who faces proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him and such proceedings are pending before a criminal court in India. It is rather against the interest of the State and Society at large, that the accused persons or any of them should be permitted to go abroad frequently while the serious criminal charges drag on for a number of years. Also there are prosecution witnesses in many countries and how can it be guaranteed or rather who will go abroad to verify whether the accused petitioner contacts those witnesses in order to win them over. The witnesses can even be contacted by long distance telephone calls about which no records will be available.
(6) Taking into consideration all the above circumstances, I am of the view that at the moment it is not a fit case when the petitioner should be permited to go abroad. Petition is, therefore, rejected.