IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 320 of 2010() ------------------------ CMP.NO.9986/2009 IN CC.1929/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- SYAM @ SYAMKUMAR, S/O.GANGADHARAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, KOMBARA DESOM,MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.320 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 25th February 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in C.C.1929/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda taken cognizance for the offence under Section of 27 of Arms Act was released on bail on conditions. One of the condition was that he shall surrender the passport. Petitioner surrendered the passport. Later he filed C.M.P.9986/2009 for release of the passport. By Annexure-2 order, petition was dismissed. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-2 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Crmc 320/10 2 Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that as petitioner has to go abroad, learned Magistrate should have released the passport. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that summons have already been issued to the witnesses and if petitioner is to be released, the case cannot be tried and therefore, passport may not be released. Learned counsel at this point submitted that there may be a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose the case, expeditiously. 4. If passport is to be released and petitioner is to leave India, he will not be available for trial. In such circumstances, I find no justification to interfere with Annexure-2 order, especially when petitioner has not shown the purpose for which he needs Crmc 320/10 3 passport, apart from vaguely saying that he has to go abroad. It is more so, when summons has already been issued to the witnesses. Petition is disposed directing Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda to dispose C.C.1929/2009 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.