FAROOQ HASSAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for Union of India appeard in the first-half and prayed that the case may be taken in the second half at 2 p. m. Then the case was taken up at 2 p. m. but the learned counsel for the Union of India did not appear though he was informed and he merely stated to the Jamadar of the court that his attendance may be recorded. On the earlier dates the learned counsel for the Union of India and the departmental representatives who also appeared were specifically asked as to what offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioners but, neither the departmental representatives nor the counsel for the Union of India gave any answer of the said query. Merely it was stated that the offence is covered by Sec. 135 of the Customs Act. Without referring any document, they even failed to show the enquiry or investigation papers. I feel that at the time of arguments neither the counsel nor the departmental representatives were clear on these points, so they failed to give a definite answer to the court.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners while referring the provisions of Sec. 132 and 135 of the Customs Act so also the extracts of the Book titled as Import and Export Policy Volume-II from April 1988 to March 1989 as amended upto 31. 03. 1989 and also Hand Book of Procedures from April 1988 to March 1991 on Imports and Export Promotion contended that no offence under any of the law has been committed by the petitioners. He admitted that the petitioners are doing the business of exporting gold and silver ornaments. He also read out Clauses 409 of Head Note C of Hand Book of Procedures which deals the Gold and Silver Jewellery Export Promotion and Replenishment Scheme. Reference has also been made to Part 'b' Schedule I of Import and Export Policy relating to Items export of which is allowed on merits or subject to ceiling or other conditions to be specified from time to time, Schedule HI with heading "open General Licence", O. G. L. No. 3 with heading Items export of which is allowed under Open General Licence subject to prescribed conditions specially Clause 33 (i) of the said Scheme which deals with Silver Jewellery and Silver Articles mentioned in Para 297 (ii) of Import and Export Policy, 1988-91 (Volume-I) and (ii) Silver Jewellery containing less than 50 per cent silver content by weight. THE learned counsel for the petitioners further referred Export Licencing Procedures which have been mentioned in the Book Import and Export Policy Volume-II in Section-V. At page 60 of this Book the learned counsel for the petitioner referred Open General Licence and its condition No. 9 and the categories of O. G. L. He also referred category (c) of O. G. L. I have considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the relevant provisions of law so also the Books referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage no opinion can be expressed on the point as to whether any offence has been committed by the petitioners. But looking to the submissions it appears that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of Sec. 438 Cr. P. C. Hence, this bail application is allowed. All the petitioners (1) Rajeev Arora (2) Rajesh Ajmera & (3) Mishri Arora are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest by Investigating Officer/sho provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 5000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/ Arresting Officer with the following conditions :- (a) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) that the petitioners shall not directly, or indirectly, make arty inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or any police officer; and (c) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the court. .;