* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.572 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.382 OF 2008 IN MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2008 IN ECIR 02/MZO/2006 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE Assistant Director FEMA/PMLA Enforcement Directorate .....Applicant V/s. Philip Anandraj & Anr. .....Respondents. AND Mohammed Shamsudheen P.V. ....Intervenor/ Applicant ======= Mr.Rajendra Raghuwanshi, Additional Solicitor General with Mr.Y.R.Mishra, adv.for applicants. Mr.P.Janardhan i/by.Mr.Prakash Naik, adv.for respondents. Ms.Preeti Menon i/by.M/s.Sreeji & Lal, adv.for Intervenor. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 23RD MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This application for intervention is by the original * 2 * complainant filed in the revision application to challenge the order by which the Sessions Court has directed that passport of respondent no.1 who is the original accused be returned to him. The intervenor apprehends that if the passport of respondent no.1 is returned to him, he would leave India and would not be available for trial. The applicant who is the original complainant, on the complaint of whom the Enforcement Directorate has prosecuted respondent no.1, can have no say in the matter of return of the passport to respondent no.1. The concern as regards the attendance of respondent no.1 in the trial court will be the concern of the court and that of the prosecuting agency. In the instant case, the prosecuting agency has been active and taking proper interest in prosecution of the case, as can be seen from the fact of the filing of the revision application. There is no need for intervention by the original complainant. Hence, Criminal Application No.572 of 2008 is hereby dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]