'C.R.' Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. These are applications filed invoking Section 482 Cr.PC.
2. Petitioner stands arrayed as an accused in four different cases registered under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. With passage of time, he was granted regular bail in terms of the statutory provisions, on expiry of 180 days of custody. In doing so, the NIA Court imposed different conditions. He challenged those conditions before this Court. That was repelled as per judgment reported as Majeed Koliyad v. State of Kerala [2013(4) KLT 932].
3. These criminal miscellaneous cases are filed challenging the refusal of the NIA Court to lift the condition that the petitioner's passport will stand surrendered. He wanted the passport to be released and also wanted to go to Dubai. The conditions imposed as per the original order were sought to be relaxed to the extent of giving him an opportunity to go abroad. The court below refused it.
4. In support of these criminal miscellaneous cases filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that there is no reason whatsoever in law and on facts to refuse the relief sought for by the petitioner. It is pointed out that any stringent condition, as to surrender and reporting to the embassy in Dubai could have been imposed. He says that the impugned orders are in the nature of interlocutory orders, and therefore, they are not appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act, however that, they result in manifest miscarriage of justice, and are, therefore, challenged invoking Section 482 Cr.PC.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the NIA argued that the impugned are final orders, inasmuch as, those are orders refusing to lift a condition imposed, and to that extent, they are final orders, and hence, they could have been only appealed or sought to be revised in terms of the provisions of the NIA Act. It is argued that, that not having been done, an application under Section 482 Cr.PC is not maintainable. In support, he relied on the decision of this Court in Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala [2011(3) KLT 734]. He also pointed out that the nature of transactions between the petitioner and the other accused persons and the modus operandi adopted by them, as is disclosed during the course of investigation, essentially show that there is no reason to let the petitioner go beyond the territorial limits and jurisdiction as imposed on him as per the order granting bail.
6. In the nature of the issues raised, it is not necessary for us to dwell deep into the question as to the quality of the orders impugned and say whether they could be subjected to appeal or revision, in terms of the provisions of the NIA Act. All that the petitioner has sought for in these matters is exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. That, obviously, would be done only in cases of manifest miscarriage of justice or when an inferior criminal court acts in excessive exercise of jurisdiction or when the action of that court is in lack of jurisdiction and in situations when the order impugned would result in gross injustice and violation of rights, if allowed to stand. This is the only law, which is trite, as can be fished out from the ocean of precedent law. We do not deem it necessary to quote the precedents settling this iconic principle.
7. Applying the aforesaid yardstick, we see that the learned Judge of the NIA Court has applied his mind to the facts, which are relevant to come to the conclusions on the questions raised. It has been specifically held by the court below that the request for return of passport and to lift the condition to surrender the passport, are not bona fide and the petitioner had not even disclosed as to what is his avocation in Dubai and the purpose for which he needs to go to Dubai. The learned Judge has viewed the statements of the accused as superfluous and vague. The orders impugned in these cases clearly disclose application of mind. The conclusions in those orders cannot be treated as perverse or unavailable on record. The learned Judge has also taken stock of all probabilities of the accused person (petitioner) abusing any relaxation of the conditions.
8. We, therefore, find no ground of legal or jurisdictional infirmity or injustice warranting interference with the orders impugned in these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. These cases, therefore, fail.
In the result, these petitions are dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE) jg