1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1220 OF 2009 Fahmi Mohammed Ahmed & others Petitioners versus the State of Maharashtra Respondent Mubin H. Solkar for petitioners. H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th June 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. As far as first and second petitioners are concerned, they are facing a charge for the offence punishable under sections 6, 7(1)(3) and 20 of the Cigarettes and Tobacco Act, 2003. The petitioner nos.3 to 7 are admittedly not the accused. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 18th April 2009 by which the applications made by the petitioners for return of their passports were rejected. 2. When the petition came up before this Court on 08th May 2009 2 the learned APP pointed out that petitioner nos.3 to 7 are not the accused. Therefore, for the reasons recorded, the passports of petitioner nos. 3 to 7 were ordered to be returned. By the said order the second petitioner was permitted to travel abroad for visiting Republic of Yemen along with 3rd to 7th petitioners. The said temporary permission expires today. 3. When this petition was called out on 16th June 2009 the learned APP pointed out that the first and second petitioners have remained absent from July 2008 onwards before the Trial Court. Therefore, a query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to when the said petitioners will appear before the learned Magistrate. Today, on instructions of Mr.D.T.Mandviwala i/by M/s.Mandviwala & Co., the learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is unable to make any statement in that behalf. 4. It is obvious that the first and second petitioners do not desire to appear before the Trial Court. Therefore, there was every justification for the learned Trial Judge for rejecting the prayer made by them for return of their passports. The second petitioner was granted temporary permission to go abroad under the orders of this Court as third to seventh petitioners who are the children of first and second petitioners, were due to appear for their school examination. 3 5. Considering the conduct of the first and second petitioners, this petition cannot be entertained. However, as third to seventh petitioners are not the accused, the order passed on 08th May 2009 by this Court will have to be maintained. 6. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) The writ petition is dismissed insofar as first and second petitioners are concerned; (b) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court stands modified insofar as petitioner nos.3 to 7 are concerned and to that extent the order dated 08th May 2009 passed by this Court will continue to operate; (c) The permission granted under the order dated 08th may 2009 in favour of the second petitioner stands revoked and the respondent- State will take all possible steps in accordance with law for procuring the presence of the second petitioner by making appropriate application before the Trial Court; (d) The cash amount deposited by the second petitioner under the 4 orders of this Court stands forfeited and the amount shall be deposited with the Trial Court; (d) The petition is disposed of accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)