IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-10-2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P.Nos.21167, 21168, 21169 and 21170 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1+1+1 and 1 of 2009 Pushpam .. Petitioner in all the petitions Versus The State rep by The Inspector of Police Crime Branch CID, Metro Unit Alandur, Chennai-16 ... Respondent in all the petitions Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to modify the condition imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.R.C.Nos.79, 80, 78 and 94 of 2009 dated 19.8.2009 and conseqently direct the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to reform the passport to the Petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.Shanmugasundaram, SC for Mr.N.Chandrasekaran For respondent : Mr.N. R. Elango APP O R D E R The petitions are filed, seeking to modify the condition imposed on the petitioner by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.R.C.Nos.79, 80, 78 and 94 of 2009 dated 19.8.2009. 2. The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under Secs.406, 420, 120(B), 323, 341, 506(i) IPC and Secs.4,5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act. On conclusion of the investigation, final report has been filed and it is pending on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3. At the time when the petitioner was released on bail, one of the conditions imposed was to the effect that she should surrender her passport and such condition has been complied with. Subsequently, on Court Orders, her passport was returned back temporarily to go to her native place at Malaysia and later on the passport has been re-submitted before the learned Magistrate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. When a petition has been preferred for return of passport, the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 14.7.209 and aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Court of Sessions and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai after hearing both the parties, issued a direction, which reads as follows: " (iv) She is given at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate for temporary return of the passport as and when required for her to go to a foreign country furnishing the details of purposes of her visit and possible date of return." 5. Aggrieved against such direction, the petitioner has filed the present petitions before this Court. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by pointing out that the petitioner is a respectable person, who was in charge of operation of the Gold Quest Company in India and that though she is a Malaysian National, she is of Indian Origin, also submits that the petitioner has proved her bonafide on earlier occasions and surrendered her passport after returning from Malaysia. 7. The learned senior counsel has relied on a case reported in 2008 (3) SCC 674 (Suresh Nanda vs Central Bureau of Investigation) and submitted that the passport cannot be kept in the custody of the Magistrate endlessly and it will amount to impounding and therefore seeks for return of passport. He further submits that impounding could be done only under Passport Act and the direction issued by the learned Principal Sessions Judge is not workable since every time the petitioner may have to approach the learned Magistrate. He also submits, on instructions, that the petitioner will take up the proceedings before the Court. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that at the time of releasing the petitioner on bail, one of the conditions imposed was to surrender her passport. Such condition was imposed since the petitioner is a foreign national. Now that the investigation has been completed and final report also filed and the presence of the petitioner is absolutely necessary before the Court for taking up further proceedings. He further submits that this petition itself is not maintainable since already a revision has been preferred before the Court of Sessions aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate and this will amount to a second revision, which is barred under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. Further the direction has been issued by the Court below only to ensure the presence of the petitioner and therefore submitted that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. 9. I have perused the materials available on record and also gone through the case law of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned senior counsel which deals with seizure and impounding of a passport. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Admittedly the petitioner is a foreign national whose passport was surrendered on earlier occasion for getting relief of bail and it has been returned to her for visiting Malaysia. The Court below has passed such an order to have a control over the accused and at the same time giving liberty to visit the native place. 11. The surrender of passport with the learned Magistrate cannot be contended that it would amount to seizure or impounding. Only in the event of impounding passport, the grievance of the petitioner will be considered in that perspective. Pending trial of a criminal case, such an analogy cannot be applied for such condition has been imposed only to have a control over the accused. 12. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petitions. Therefore, all these petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected MPs are closed. However, the learned Magistrate, soon after filing a petition for return of passport, shall consider the same and pass orders on the same day. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sr To 1. The Principal Sessions Jdge, Chennai 2. II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 3. The Inspector of Police Crime Branch CID, Metro Unit Alandur, Chennai-16 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai + 4 cc to Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, SR 54068 to 54071 Crl.O.P.Nos.21167, 21168, 21169 and 21170 of 2009 KG (CO) RH (21.10.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/