Facts of the Case

This case, though it surfaces in a GST document search because the petitioner's business happened to hold GST registration, is in substance a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, engaged in the business of buying and selling gold and silver ornaments and holding a valid passport, was named as a co-accused in FIR No. 21/2021 registered at Police Station Rohat, Pali, for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He was arrested and released on bail on 14.03.2023.

As a frequent business traveller to Dubai, the petitioner sought court permission to travel abroad; his application was rejected by the trial court on 12.05.2023 on the ground that investigation was pending and no charge-sheet had been filed. By the time the matter reached the High Court, the charge-sheet had been filed. The petitioner also pointed to a related Supreme Court order (in SLP (Criminal) No. 8414/2021, concerning the firm Tirupati Trading Company and alleged GST-related irregularities) which had earlier stayed his arrest without imposing any travel restriction, and under which he had already made multiple foreign trips without incident.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a Look-Out Circular and travel restriction could be sustained against a co-accused, not named in the FIR, once investigation and charge-sheeting were complete.
  2. Whether the petitioner's right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution outweighed the State's apprehension of flight risk.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner is not the main accused and was not even named in the FIR; the allegation stems solely from a co-accused's disclosure statement.
  • Investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has been filed, removing the principal ground on which travel permission was earlier refused.
  • A similarly placed co-accused had been permitted to travel abroad without restriction by a coordinate bench of the same Court.
  • The petitioner's business as a frequent international gold and silver trader would suffer irreparable loss if the restriction continued, and a one-time Dubai visa he holds would lapse if unused.
  • Restraining international travel merely because a criminal case is pending violates the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, per Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 77.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner is an accused in a matter involving tax evasion of a substantial amount, and there is a real possibility he may not return to India if permitted to travel.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found the petitioner's case indistinguishable from that of the co-accused who had already been permitted unrestricted travel.
  • It noted that the earlier refusal was founded on the pendency of investigation and absence of a charge-sheet — both of which no longer held true.
  • It held that curbing international travel solely on the basis of a pending case, without more, would infringe Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed; the impugned order and the Look-Out Circular were quashed, subject to conditions — advance notice before required court appearances, sureties of Rs. 5,00,000 each from the petitioner's father and wife, and return to India within 90 days of departure.

Important Clarification

This is a criminal procedure and constitutional-rights decision, not a GST ruling. The only GST connection is incidental: the petitioner's trading firm held GST registration, and a separate, unrelated Supreme Court matter referenced in the order concerned an alleged GST-evasion investigation involving a different firm. No GST liability or compliance question was decided here.

Sections Involved

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 397 and 401 (revisional jurisdiction)
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420 and 120-B
  • Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(va)
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21

Decision – In Favour of

Allowed in favour of the petitioner — the Look-Out Circular and the order restraining foreign travel were quashed, subject to specified conditions.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
  • Case No.: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1086/2023
  • Coram: Justice Farjand Ali
  • Date of Order: 25.08.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.