THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1258 of 2011 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this revision is whether the petitioners are entitled to get back their passports in order to enable them to go Canada and return back for attending the trial in C.C.No.600 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendra Nagar, R.R. District. 2. The two petitioners herein are A1 and A2 in the aforesaid calendar case. The charges levelled against them in the said case are punishable under Section 498-A IPC and it is pending trial. Both of them filed a petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.2090 of 2011 for return of their passports. The trial Court has, after hearing the petitioners and the prosecution, by its order dated 07.06.2011 dismissed that petition. Questioning that order the petitioners have come up with this revision. 3. The first petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant and the second petitioner is the father of the first petitioner. The main plea of the petitioners for return of their passports is that the first petitioner is a practicing Doctor i.e. medical practitioner in Canada and the second petitioner is his father and he is a retired Scientist and both of them have to go Canada in connection with their work. The first petitioner has stated that he has to go Canada to attend his appointments. The trial Court considered the matter and concluded that if the petitioners are allowed to leave India there is no likelihood of their coming back to India to face the trial and on that ground it dismissed their petition. 4. In this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioners repeated the pleas taken by the petitioners before the trial Court. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this petition and submitted that if the petitioners are allowed to go Canada they are not likely to come back to India and the case will be pending here. 5. The trial Court observed that as the case is ripe for trial, if the petitioners stay back and cooperate with it, the trial in the case can immediately be taken up and therefore the passports cannot be returned to them. This reason given by the trial Court cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable and therefore the order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any other convincing reason for return of passports especially when the case is ripe for trial. In these circumstances, having regard to the difficulties which may be faced by the prosecution party i.e. the de facto complainant if the case is held up, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice to reject the request of the petitioners and direct the trial Court to proceed with the matter and dispose it of so that depending upon the result of the case the petitioner’s request for return of passport can be considered. 6. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons this revision case is dismissed and the trial Court is directed to take up the trial immediately on day-to-day basis and dispose of the case preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 29th June 2011 CVRK