IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4540 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.5/2009 OF SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM .................. PETITIONER / ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ TONY THARAKAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.V.THARAKAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, 20/272A, THYNOTHIL ROAD, ALUVA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.THAMPI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.V.S. NAMBOOTHIRY, SC, C.B.I. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 4540 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 17th day of December,2010 ORDER Accused No.9 in C.C.5/2009 before Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam filed Crl.M.P.794/2010 before the learned Special Judge seeking permission to apply for a fresh passport. By Annexure A order, learned Special Judge dismissed the petition holding that presence of the petitioner is necessary during trial. Petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said order. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent were heard. 3. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that petitioner could be arrested and produced before the court only with the help of Crl.M.C.4540/2010 2 interpole as he was abroad and if petitioner is to go abroad, he will not be available for trial. Learned senior counsel submitted that petitioner was working in Quatar and he was not implicated in the F.I.R and was implicated only in 2004 and in such circumstances it cannot be said that petitioner was absconding. Learned senior counsel also submitted that permission is sought to apply for a passport contending that waiting for disposal of the case, would protract the issuance of the passport and in such circumstances, learned Special Judge should have granted permission to apply for the passport. `4. I do not find that for the reason that petitioner is facing trial, he shall be denied opportunity to get a passport, if he is otherwise entitled to. What is necessary is presence of the petitioner is there for the purpose of trial. That could be assured by specifically providing that petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the learned Sessions Judge. Crl.M.C.4540/2010 3 Petition is allowed. Annexure A5 order is quashed. Crl.M.P.794/2010 stands allowed to the extent of permitting the petitioner to apply for a fresh passport subject to the condition that petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Special Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006