IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 231 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/09/2007 IN CRMP 3478/07 IN CC.56/2007 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.14 -------------------------- MOHAMMED @ CHEROOTTY, S/O. KHALEEL HAJI, MANISSERY HOUSE, HAJIARPALLY P.O., MALAPPURAM, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY C.B.I., SPE, KOCHI, BY CBI PROSECUTOR. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 231 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the 14th accused in C.C. No. 56/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 380, 457 and 411 r/w Section 120 B IPC, seeks to quash Annexure A order dated 19.09.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam rejecting the petitioner's application to release his passport. 2. The request made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate was that he requires his passport which was seized by the CBI during investigation as he was desirous of going for a pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca for Hajj. He had stated before the court below that the CBI, who had seized his passport during investigation, had failed to produce the same before the court and include it among the prosecution records. The said statement turned out to be false and that it persuaded the Chief Judicial Magistrate to refuse his prayer. CRL. M.C. NO. 231/2008 : 2: 3. In this petition the petitioner has produced Annexure B letter purportedly issued by Chop Wee Kiat, a concern said to be located at Singapore, asking him to participate in a business meeting scheduled to be held in Singapore. First of all, the said letter does not indicate the date of the business meeting. Consequently, this was not the purpose for which the petitioner moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate for return of his passport. There his reason was for going to Mecca for pilgrimage. Hence, in the fitness of things the petitioner should move the Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing an appropriate petition and in case his request for release of the passport is found to be bona fide, that court shall pass appropriate orders as was passed in the case of the 12th accused Aboobacker @Barik. This Crl. M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 231/2008 : 3: