Crl.Misc No M- 38292 of 2010 Davinder Singh V. State of Punjab Present: Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** ORDER The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 31st March, 2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala and order dated 28th October, 2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that passport of the petitioner was mis-placed somewhere and the same could not be located. The moment it is traced out, the same would be deposited before the trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that an affidavit to this effect has already been filed before the trial Court by stating that the petitioner is not in possession of the passport at this stage. In-spite of submitting a specific affidavit, the impugned orders have been passed to surrender the passport within a period of fifteen days. Learned counsel also submits that the period of fifteen days be extended for depositing the passport. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned orders. As per order dated 31st March, 2010, the petitioner was directed to surrender his passport before the trial Court within a period of fifteen days from the date of order, failing which an intimation is to be issued to the Regional Passport Authority, Chandigarh as well as to the Embassy of India and England directing Crl.Misc No M- 38292 of 2010 [2] them to inform the trial Court and to seek prior permission of the Court as and when the petitioner applies for visa so that the petitioner may not be issued any duplicate passport. There is nothing wrong with the said order as only direction has been issued by the trial Court that before issuing any duplicate passport, prior permission of the Court is required. It has come on record that the petitioner went abroad during pendency of Court proceedings without obtaining any prior permission of the Court, whereas while granting anticipatory bail vide order dated 13th January, 2005, certain conditions were imposed and one of the conditions was that the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. That condition has been violated by the petitioner and he has mis-used the concession of bail as no prior permission was sought from the Court. Moreover, the petitioner has not specifically stated in the affidavit with regad to possession of his passport as neither any intimation was sent to the Passport Authority nor any report in this regard was ever lodged with the police. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make such prayer for extension of time before the trial Court, if so advised. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) January 04, 2011 JUDGE raghav