Madras HC Allows Passport Renewal of Person Accused of Customs Act Offences noting Employment in UAE [Read Order]
The Madras High Court laid down strict requisites that had to be adhered to by the petitioner to effectuate the renewal of his passport.
Passport - renewal - Taxscan
Passport - renewal - Taxscan
The Madras High Court recently allowed a person accused of offences under the Customs Act, 1962, noting that the accused was employed within the UAE and the lack of a valid passport forbade him from travel; however, while imposing strict conditions for the same.
The petitioner, M. Sathish Babu’s passport was originally issued on 27 January 2015 and had expired on 26 January 2025. The petitioner’s renewal application dated 15 January 2025 was held in abeyance since a criminal proceeding against him remained pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-II, Chennai for offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Master the Latest Amendments in Income Tax Act Click here
In the present matter before the High Court, the standing counsel for the customs department informed the High Court of an outstanding non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and of his lack of cooperation.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed that the petitioner file an affidavit undertaking to return to India and surrender before the concerned magistrate and seek recall of the non-bailable warrant. The petitioner had also sworn an undertaking that he would travel to India on 3 November 2025 and surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 5 November 2025.
The High Court further ordered that the Regional Passport Officer communicate the effect of the order to the Consulate General in the UAE and that the passport shall be renewed or reissued on receipt of that communication.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
The court further directed that the petitioner must strictly adhere to the undertaking and cooperate for early disposal of the criminal case; further the petitioner was to necessarily seek permission from the concerned jurisdictional Court where the criminal case is pending if he wished to leave India.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
The petitioner was represented by A. Poonkodi while the respondents were represented by S. Dilliraj, CGSC, and Rajinish Pathiyal, SPC.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
