IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-1-2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI CRL.R.C.No.1260 of 2008 R. Dhanapalan ... Petitioner vs 1. State rep by Inspector of Police Q-branch, Chennai 2. Sivakumar ... Respondents Revision Petition is filed under Sec.397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 26.8.2008 passed in MP No.1297 of 2008 in FIR No.92/97 in Q Branch Cr.No.3/2007 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. For petitioner : Mr.Subash Pandiyan For R.1 : Mr.Muniyapparaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner is not an accused in the case. The main accused in the case was found in possession of 19 passports for the purpose of sending the passport holders abroad for employment. Since there was no requisite licence, prosecution has been launched under Sec.12(1)(d) of The Passports Act, 1967, which reads as follows: 12) Offences and penalties: (1) whoever (a) ...... (b) (c) (d) knowingly uses a passport or travel documents issued to another person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both". 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has deposited his passport seeking for employment abroad and unfortunately, it has been seized during the course of investigation. However, on instructions, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to give evidence since he has been taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as witness in the case at the time of enquiry before the learned Magistrate, even before the trial of the case. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that investigation is pending and it is being delayed for want of sanction. 4. I have perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is not an accused and he is only a witness. It is alleged that the passports were found in possession of the accused. The learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the return of the passport is required to enable the petitioner to go to abroad for employment. 5. In a case reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943, Sunderbhai ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, certain procedures have been prescribed for returning the property under Sec.451 Cr.P.C. 6. Since the petitioner is not an accused, his passport cannot be detained indefinitely. Accordingly I am of the considered view that by observing certain formalities as prescribed by the Supreme Court and by imposing certain conditions, the passport of the petitioner could be returned. a) the learned Magistrate is directed to return the original passport of the petitioner to him after conducting an enquiry, in which, the petitioner is directed to be examined as a witness. The evidence of the petitioner may be recorded by the prosecution after affording an opportunity to the accused to cross examine the witness; b) xerox copy of the passport shall be retained after attestation by the learned Magistrate. c) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.; 7. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai dated 26.8.2008 passed in MP No.1297 of 2008 is set aside and the criminal revision case is allowed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sr To 1. The learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. 2.-do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police Q-branch, Chennai 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai +1cc to Mr.M.Subash Pandiyan, Advocate Sr 2688 NTK(CO) km/9.2. Crl.R.C.No.1260/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/