IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2234 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2010 IN CRMP 1355/2010 IN CC.1281/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- G.V.SURESH,S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, GOPALAN VEETTIL,VAIPARAMBU,AZHEEKKODE, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2234 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.473/2009 of Guruvayoor Police Station and now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad as C.C.No.1281/2009 challenges Annexure B order dated 12/3/2010 passed by the Magistrate dismissing his application filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing his passport. According to the de facto complainant, he had parted with 25,000 Dirhams equivalent to Rupees three lakhs to the accused who had promised to secure ten visas for overseas employment and when the visas were not forthcoming the complainant demanded his money back and then the accused allegedly executed an agreement and handed over the passport for due performance of the terms of the agreement by way of security. The complainant had produced the agreement and passport along with the complaint filed before the Magistrate. 2. The court below on the application of the petitioner/accused refused to return/release the passport to Crl.M.C.No.2234/2010 : 2 : the petitioner. The Court below observed inter alia that in case the passport is returned to the petitioner he may leave the country and make himself scarce and will not be available for the trial of the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the purpose for which release of the passport was sought was to send the same to his employer abroad for endorsement regarding the visa and the petitioner does not want to go abroad using the passport. If so, the petitioner can make an application before the Magistrate to send the passport through court to his employer for the said purpose on remittance of the necessary expenditure for the same and also for return of the passport through court. Reserving the above right of the petitioner, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj