By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the prayer for suspension of order of companyviction dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate during the pendency of the revision petition on the ground that the order of companyviction is companying in the way of respondent to travel abroad.
P.C. with inter alia restrictions that the respondent will number leave the companyntry without prior permission of the Court.
The order of suspension of sentence was modified and permission was granted to the applicant to travel abroad without seeking permission of the companyrt each and every time.
Thereafter, Criminal Case No.206 of 1999 was registered and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur vide order dated 10th April, 2006 companyvicted the respondent u s 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act , 1972 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for five years alongwith a fine of Rs.25,000/ and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
Initially, the respondent sought permission of the Court on a number of occasions to travel abroad in relation to his professional engagement, which entailed shooting of films companymercials shows as per the requirement of producer and director.
Thereafter, the respondent preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No.905 of 2007 before the High Court of Rajasthan under Section 397 r w Section 401 of the Cr.
The companyrectness of the impugned judgment and order is assailed by the appellant on the following ground The effect of suspension of companyviction only takes away the operative effect of companyviction but the companyviction as the fact stands until reversion and acquittal and therefore the denial of Visa by the UK Authorities on the factum of companyviction is number going to be in any way be altered by the suspension of companyviction as the same is number binding on the said Authority being outside the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court.
Meanwhile, the respondent applied for a United Kingdom Visa which was rejected by the U.K. Border Agency Home Office on the ground that the application does number satisfy the criteria set out for grant of entry clearance or leave to enter the U.K. specially referring to U.K. Immigration Rules laid down in Paragraph 320 2 b of HC 395 states that entry clearance to the U.K. is to be refused if an applicant has been companyvicted of an offence for which he has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 4 years.
We have companysidered the rival companytentions raised by the parties and also perused the record.
The order of companyviction is companying in his way to travel abroad which has resulted in negating the order granting him permission to go abroad.
The order of companyviction was upheld by the Appellate Court.
Later on, the High Court vide order dated 21st February, 2011 modified the companydition regarding seeking permission to go abroad.
Subsequently, after a period of almost 3.5 years, the respondent moved an application for modification of the order dated 31st August, 2007 to the extent that the respondent may be allowed to travel abroad without the permission of the Court.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of companyviction and sentence, the respondent preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2006 before District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which was dismissed vide order dated 24th August, 2007.
The respondent accused is companyvicted u s 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act , 1972.
The High Court while allowing the application filed by the respondent u s 389 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of the order of companyviction, passed the impugned judgment with following observation The revision petition of the applicant was admitted vide a detailed order.
The respondent being aggrieved by the refusal of Visa by the U.K Authorities, applied for administrative review which was rejected on the ground on 20th August, 2013, which is reproduced hereunder Honorary legal Advisors have review all the information put forward in this case and their advice is that from the evidence produced, the Indian Courts have only suspended the execution of 5 years sentence.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by the State against the final judgment and order dated 12th November, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.718 of 2013 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.905 of 2007.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows Crime No.
His profession requires him to travel abroad.
IR No.163 of 1998 u s 147,148 and 149 of IPC and u s 9,39,51 and 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act , 1972 and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the respondent, pursuant to which the respondent was arrested on 12th October, 1998.
The High Court vide order dated 21st February, 2011 allowed the prayer.
Against the same, the respondent accused has preferred a revision petition under Section 397 r w Section 401 of Cr.
