IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3069 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.491/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------ P.K.NARAYANAN, S/O.KANNAN, “SREERANG”, VILLIAPPALLY.P.O, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED/STATE ------------- 1. K.DINESAN, S/O.ANANDAN, ASOK SADAN, VILLIAPALLI.P.O, VATAKARA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3069 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused have been found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The accused preferred an appeal. The appeal was admitted and the sentence was suspended subject to the condition that the accused must execute a bond and deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/-. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The said amount has already been deposited. 2. In the trial, the accused wanted to produce his passport as a piece of evidence to support his case. The passport was thus produced and marked before the court as an exhibit, ie. Ext.D1. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused wanted return of his passport to facilitate his travel to his place of employment abroad. The accused made an application and in that application notwithstanding the opposition by the complainant/petitioner herein the learned Magistrate, by the Crl.M.C. No.3069 of 2008 2 impugned order, directed release of the passport on condition that he shall produce certified copy in substitution and that he shall produce the original as and when directed by the court. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the release of the passport to the accused will lead to his fleeing from justice. He will be able to proceed to his place of employment abroad and he may not be available later for execution of the sentence. 4. The court below did not evidently accept this objection. It is vital relevance that the passport was placed before court not as a condition for bail or as security to ensure the presence of the accused. It happened to be before court only as a piece of evidence relied on by the accused. 5. I am satisfied that the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate are more than sufficient to ensure the interests of justice. I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order does warrant interference by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Crl.M.C. No.3069 of 2008 3 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that there may be a direction for speedy disposal of the appeal. The petitioner can move the learned Sessions Judge for such early disposal and the learned Sessions Judge must pass appropriate orders on such application. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-