..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.307 OF 2008 1. Singaram Pandian, 2. Smt.Pandian Uma, 3. Miss.Pandian Suganya, & 4. Master Pandian Shravanakumar. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.V.N.Shinganapurkar, Adv. for applicants. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. Mr.D.N.Salvi, Counsel a/w. Ms.H.P.Shah, Adv. for respondent No.2-CBI. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2-CBI and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant No.2 is the wife of applicant No.1. Applicant Nos.3 & 4 are the children of applicant Nos.1 & 2. Applicant No.1 is accused in RC 8(E)/2005 and RC 9(E)/2005. The said cases are being investigated by C.B.I.. The passports of the applicants have been seized. The applicants ..(2).. are now seeking return of the said passports. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicants states that he is not pressing this application in respect of applicant No.1 for return of passport. He seeks liberty to file a separate application at a later stage. Liberty as prayed for is granted. Thus, this application is being decided only in respect of applicant Nos.2 to 4. Mr.Salvi, the learned Counsel for C.B.I. tendered affidavit-in-reply of the C.B.I.. The said affidavit-in-reply is taken on record. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the prosecution has no objection for return of the passports of applicant Nos.2 to 4. In view of the averment in the affidavit, the passports of applicant Nos.2 to 4 be returned to the said applicant Nos.2 to 4 within a week from today. 4. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)