Pinakin Kantilal Patel v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors

VINODBHASKARGOKHALEDigitally signed byVINOD BHASKARGOKHALEDate: 2023.11.0914:49:27 +0530 Gokhale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3173 OF 2023 INCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 614 OF 2011 Pinakin Kantilal Patel ..Applicant. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ..Respondents __________ Mr. Siddharth Jagushte for Applicant. Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekar for Respondent No.1. Mr. Shahajirao Shinde, APP for Passport Authority/RespondentNo.3. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for State/Respondent No.2. __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.DATE : 9NOVEMBER 2023 PC : 1.The Applicant has preferred this application for issuingno objection to the applicant for renewal of his passport for fullterm of 10 years, in accordance with rules under the Passport Act,1967. 2.Heard Mr. Siddharth Jagushte, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekar, learned counsel for theRespondent No.1, Mr. Shahajirao Shinde, learned APP for thePassport Authority/Respondent No.3 and Mr. Arfan Sait, learnedAPP for the State/Respondent No.2. 3.The Applicant is the original accused No.7 inC.C.No.103/SW/2013 before the Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, 38[th] Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The prosecution is forthe offences punishable under sections 276(C)(2) r/w. Section278B of the Income Tax Act. The applicant was prosecuted for theallegations that, he was officer in charge of and responsible to theaffairs of the accused No.1 company i.e. M/s.MaegawareComputers Limited, that had committed the principal offence. 4.Learned counsel for the Applicant states that theprosecution was launched in the year 1993 and the aforesaidnumber is the new number given to the case. The applicant haschallenged the prosecution by way of Criminal Application No.614of 2011. The said application is already admitted and interimprotection is granted to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, after registration of the case against the applicant, on two occasions thepassport authorities had renewed his passport for the full term of10 years, but on subsequent two occasions it was renewed only forone year and for one year and seven months respectively. Hesubmitted that, in the past, on 8 occasions the applicant wasgranted permission to travel abroad. Pursuant to thosepermissions, he had travelled abroad and had returned to India;therefore, he has sufficiently established his bonafides. There is noflight risk involved in this case. 6.Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3,though, did not give consent for these reliefs, they left it to thediscretion of the Court to decide this application. 7.Considering these submissions and, in particular, takinginto account the fact that on eight occasions the applicant waspermitted to travel abroad and that he is returned back, theapplication can be allowed. 8.Hence, the following order: O R D E R i) The Applicant is granted no objection forapplying for renewal of his passport for the fullterm of 10 years.applying for renewal of his passport for the fullterm of 10 years. ii)With these observations, the application isdisposed of.disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)