IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3721 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.12574/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------- DINESH, S/O. PADMANABHAN, KARIPPALLIL HOUSE, AKKIKAVU, PERUMPALLAVU VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY TALUK, TRICHUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID-SIG-1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3721 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the 13th accused in Crime No.429 of 2009/Cr/31/04 CBCID SIG-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The case was originally registered as Crime No.315 of 2003 of Chadayamangalam Police Station for offence under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 34 I.P.C. read with section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act. Later, the case was re-registered. It is submitted that the revision petitioner, who was not an accused was later arrayed as accused with an allegation that the revision petitioner who had a passport bearing No.E.0890194, illegally obtained another passport bearing No.5415221. However passport bearing No.5415221 could not be recovered. The original passport was seized by the police during investigation. 2. The revision petitioner, by C.M.P.No.12574 of 2009 applied for return of his original passport. By the order impugned dated 21/11/2009, that petition was dismissed. Now this revision petition. 3. It is not disputed that the passport which the revision Crl.R.P.No.3721 of 2009 2 petitioner sought to be released is the genuine one. The request of the revision petitioner to release the same was declined for the reason that the same is to be retained to prove that the revision petitioner had obtained two passports. It is submitted that the revision petitioner is employed abroad and his family is also abroad and because of the retention of the passport, he is facing much difficulty. He couldn't go abroad to visit his family or to eke his livelihood. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the public prosecutor, I find that to bring on record that the revision petitioner had obtained another passport also, the retention of the original passport is not at all necessary. The copy of the same would serve the purpose. The release of the passport would no way hinder the investigation or the prosecution of the case. In case it is required for trial, to ensure the production, as and when called upon, sufficient conditions can be imposed. 5. In the result, while allowing the revision petition, the order impugned is reversed. There will be an order to return the Crl.R.P.No.3721 of 2009 3 passport bearing No.E.0890194 to the revision petitioner on substituting the same with an attested photo copy which shall be furnished by the revision petitioner and on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking to produce the same as and when called upon and on deposit of Rs.50,000/- before the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.