IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 28.10.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1037 of 2010 1.M.Ramchandar Singh 2.Janaki Devi 3.Narayan 4.Manju Singh 5.Pramod Singh 6.Kanishk Singh rep. by father Narayan Singh 7.Sweetha Singh .. Petitioners Vs State rep by Inspector of Police CBI/SCB Chennai .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the order of the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3431 of 2010 dated 23.06.2010 in RC.9(S)/ 2009/CBI/SCB/Chennai and consequently pass an order of direction, directing the release of the passport of the petitioners, which were seized by the respondent police vide seizure mahazar dated 20.11.2009 For Petitioners: Mr.B.Kumar, senior counsel for Mr.P.Solomon Francis For Respondent : Mr.N.Chandrasekaran Spl.Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases ORDER Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases takes notice on behalf of the respondent and consents for the disposal of the criminal revision case at the stage of admission itself. 2. The submissions made by Mr.B.Kumar, learned senior counsel representing the counsel on record for the petitioners and by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above said learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases are being taken into consideration and upon such consideration, the following order is passed:- 3. The petitioners 1 to 7 (out of them, the 6th and 7th petitioners are minors) have challenged the order of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 23.06.2010 made in Crl.M.P.No.3431 of 2010 in RC.9(S) of 2009. The above said case was registered on the file of the respondent for alleged offences punishable under sections 120-B IPC r/w. Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Section 9(1),9(b) and 9-AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is under investigation. The Investigating Officer seized the passports of the petitioners 1 to 7 herein and they are now in the custody of the court below. The above said Crl.M.P.No.3431 of 2010 was filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C for the return of the passports. The learned Judge of the Court below dismissed the said petition by the impugned order dated 23.06.2010. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the said order in the present criminal revision case. 4. Though petitioners 1 to 5 alone have been arraigned as accused in the above said case and petitioners 6 and 7 have not been shown as accused, by mistake they are also described as accused persons. However, such a technical mistake shall not deter the Court from passing orders granting necessary relief in the interest of justice. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the Investigating Officer nor the Special Judge does have the power to impound the passport pending investigation or pending trial and that, if the impounding of the passport becomes necessary according to the Investigating Officer or the Special Judge, then the passport authorities should be moved for the said purpose. The above said submission has been made with a qualification that in the event of entertaining any doubt regarding the genuineness of the passport and in the absence of any doubt regarding mutilation or tampering with the passport, such a power shall be available to the Investigating Officer or the Court. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I reported in 2008-1-L.W (Crl.) 503. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases fairly concedes that the passports were seized not because of any offence that was committed in respect of the passports, but in order to see that they do not leave the boundaries of the country without the knowledge of the Investigating Officer. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would say that the respondent will be satisfied, if https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the return of passport is conditioned by an undertaking that the petitioners, whenever intend to leave the country, should give information to the Investigating Officer regarding the date of their departure, place of destination and the expected date of return. 7. The said submission according to the view of this Court seems to be very fair. Hence, this Court hold that, in the light of the above said judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to a direction for the return of their passports. However, in order to ensure that the investigation is not hampered by the non-availability of the accused persons, this Court deems it fit to impose a condition for the return of the passports that petitioners 1 to 5, who alone have been arraigned as the accused, shall give an undertaking to the Court below to furnish advance information to the Investigating Officer regarding the date of their departure, place of destination and the expected date of return. 8. In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed and the Court below is directed to return the passports of the petitioners on the condition that petitioners 1 to 5 giving an undertaking to furnish advance information to the Investigating Officer regarding date of their departure, place of destination and the expected date of return. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar gpa To 1.Inspector of Police CBI/SCB Chennai 2.The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Chennai, 3.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court + 1 cc to P. Soloamon Francis, Advocate SR.77720 Crl.R.C.No.1037 of 2010 SJ(CO) Eu 11.11.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/