Errol Gilbert Pinnance Tenmyson v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2006APPLN/3346/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application by an accused before the Customs Act seeking permission to visit Honduras to meet an ailing mother, the Bombay High Court rejected the prayer on the ground that as a foreign national, he might flee. The court directed expedited disposal of adjudication proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for permission to go abroad rejected; direction to conclude adjudication proceedings expeditiously.

Errol Gilbert Pinnance Tenmyson Vs the State of… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3346 OF 2006

¶3

 Errol Gilbert Pinnance Tenmyson...Applicant

¶4

vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra & others...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant

¶7

 Mr.S.V.More,A.P.P. for State

¶8

CORAM: A.S.OKA,J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 29,2006.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

 1. Heard Advocate for the Applicant. The Applicant has been
 arraigned as Accused No.2 in a case filed under section 135 of
 the Customs Act, 1962. The Applicant made an Application for
 grant of permission to go abroad which has been rejected by
 the learned Magistrate by order dated 28th August 2006.

¶11

 2. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the
 Applicant wants to meet his ailing mother and for that purpose
 he wants to visit Honduras, Central America. He submitted
 that he is willing to give local sureties. He stated that a
 notice under Customs Act has been duly served on the Applicant
 on 15th November 2006 and the same has been replied. None
 appears for the second Respondent. Learned A.P.P. is
 present.

¶12

 3. I have considered the submissions. The Applicant is a
 foreign national. Adjudication proceedings are pending and

¶13

-2-

¶14

notice has been recently served on 15th November 2006. As the
 Applicant is a foreign national, once he travels abroad, it is
 very difficult to secure his presence in India. Therefore, at
 this stage, prayer for grant of permission cannot be
 considered. Application is rejected.

¶15

 4. After this order was passed, the learned Advocate for the
 Applicant along with the Advocate appearing for the second
 Respondent appeared in the afternoon. The Advocate for the
 Applicant prayed that adjudication proceedings be ordered to
 be disposed of expeditiously.

¶16

 5. Considering the facts of the case, the concerned authority
 will make an endeavour to conclude the adjudication
 proceedings expeditiously.

¶17

JUDGE

Errol Gilbert Pinnance Tenmyson v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Errol Gilbert Pinnance Tenmyson v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aruna Harishchandra Patil Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Murlidhar @ Hiralal Kashinath Darade @ Ramdas Maharaj Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtfa Vs Aruna Harischandra Patil

Venkatesh Raju Govind Nadar` Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Jayabharat Credit Ltd. Vs Kadar Hassan Mohd. Sultan and Ors.

Sonu Nirmal Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra