It appears Amway chief Mr William Scott Pinckney is on a spree of obtaining anticipatory bails throughout the country. In Andhra Pradesh alone he had obtained anticipatory bails in about four criminal cases. When a local court refused to grant, the Amway approached the Punjab-Haryana High Court and secured permission to move abroad. YES! He has time to travel abroad and attend meetings all over the country inducing the gullible to join his 6-4-3 scheme and lose money. But no time to attend the criminal court. He fears that once the court delivers the judgement, his game will be over.
William Scott Pinckney vs Ut Chandigarh on 17 June, 2013
CRM-M No.19553 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.19553 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 17.6.2013
William Scott Pinckney
...... Petitioner
v.
UT Chandigarh
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present : Mr. R.S.Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Chandel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the respondent. ***
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
In view of the short notice, the reply filed by the respondent is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel opposite.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an American national. He is Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of M/s Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act. The said Company has a turnover of Rs.2000 Crore per annum in India. The FIR was registered in the year 2002 and thereafter, the untraced report was prepared but due to variety of reasons all of a sudden, the Investigating agency presented the charge sheet in the year 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner sought the anticipatory bail from the Court of competent jurisdiction. He further submits that due to business compulsions, the petitioner has to attend the meetings in America and other countries about six times in a year. Therefore, the petitioner has to visit America from 22nd to 29th June, 2013, for attending the meetings. He also contends that the petitioner moved two applications dated 6.5.2013 and 5.6.2013 before the learned trial Court and those were declined without assigning good reasons. He further submits that the date before the learned trial Court for summoning of the co-accused of the petitioner is fixed for 4.7.2013 and thereafter, only the arguments will be heard with regard to framing of the charges and as such the presence of the petitioner is not required before 4.7.2013. He also contends that the petitioner is ready to furnish the security to the satisfaction of the Court so that he may not misuse the concession to be granted to him for going abroad.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to go abroad on the following grounds :
(i) That if the petitioner is permitted to go abroad, he is unlikely to come back to India.
(ii) The criminal revision petition against the rejection of his prayer passed by the learned trial Court was maintainable, therefore, the present petition is not entertainable by this
Court.
(iii) The order dated 6.5.2013 whereby the application for grant of permission to go abroad was declined by the learned trial Court has not been challenged before any court of competent jurisdiction and as such the said order has become final. He further submits that second application which was decided on 5.6.2013, was not maintainable.
(iv)That the petitioner has no serious concern to visit America as proposed by him.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record. In the cases of Srichand P.Hinduja Vs. CBI New Delhi SC 401; Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 521 (P&H); Arun Kapoor Vs. State of Haryana 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 594 (P&H), the Hon'ble Courts even allowed the foreign nationals to go abroad during the pendency of the trial. The petitioner though the foreign national, is Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of M/s Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for the last several years and is operating his company. He has to visit foreign countries for smooth running of the business of the Company and declining of his request to go abroad would certainly prejudice the business of the Company being headed by him in India. The petitioner has been booked in three separate cases for the offences punishable under Section 420, IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes Banning Act, 1978. All the charge sheets are arising out of the same FIR which were registered in the year 2002. The petitioner has already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail and the same has not been misused by him. The dispute in the criminal case is with regard to Rs 35,000/- only as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner William Scott Pinckney son of Bernard Ross Pinckney is permitted to leave India in accordance with the norms from 22.6.2013 to 29.6.2013 subject to his furnishing security by two Indian Directors of M/s Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in the sum of Rs 5 lacs each by way of bank guarantee/fixed deposit receipts to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh. After return of the petitioner from the foreign visit, the bank guarantee/fixed deposit receipt shall be released by learned trial Court.
( Naresh Kumar Sanghi )
17.6.2013 Judge Meenu
No comments:
Post a Comment