The Delhi High Court permitted Kyrgyzstan National possessing 3 Kgs of Gold at Airport to go back to Kyrgyzstan after depositing Rs.10 Lakhs. The allegations levelled against the petitioners, Ms. Aida Askerbekova and Begaim Akynova holders of Kazakhstan Passport by the Customs Authority are to the effect that they were intercepted at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, having arrived from Almaty and 3150 gms of gold was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and 1875 gms of gold was recovered from the possession of the petitioner with the consolidated recovery as per the Customs Department being 5025 gms which was valued at Rs.1,91,74,395/-.
The petitioners were enlarged on bail vide the order of the CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, with the condition imposed that they would not travel abroad without the permission of the Trial Court. Ms. Aida Askerbekova, holder of Kyrgyzstan Passport returns back to India on the 46th day from the date when she leaves India to Kyrgyzstan for the operation of her son.
The court in the light of judgement “Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others” wherein it was held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, nevertheless, the existence of the said inherent power to make such orders as to secure the ends of justice, cannot be held to be inexistent declared the petition to be maintainable.
02/09/20 TaxScan
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
The petitioners were enlarged on bail vide the order of the CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, with the condition imposed that they would not travel abroad without the permission of the Trial Court. Ms. Aida Askerbekova, holder of Kyrgyzstan Passport returns back to India on the 46th day from the date when she leaves India to Kyrgyzstan for the operation of her son.
The court in the light of judgement “Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others” wherein it was held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, nevertheless, the existence of the said inherent power to make such orders as to secure the ends of justice, cannot be held to be inexistent declared the petition to be maintainable.
02/09/20 TaxScan
0 comments:
Post a Comment