IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 720 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.2264/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- SUNIL JOSE, AGED 37, S/O. JOSE, CHENGINIYADAN HOUSE, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, KUZHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): CR.PETITIONER/STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION, REP. BY HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.720 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.2264/2006 on the file of Judicial First class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy. Petitioner was absconding. Later, he surrendered and sought bail. By Annexure-A order, bail was granted. He was directed to surrender his passport. Petitioner surrendered the passport. Later, he filed C.M.P.No.1165/2010 under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense with his presence at the time of trial. By Annexure-B order, learned Magistrate allowed that petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the condition in Annexure-A order to surrender the passport. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 720/10 2 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that as held by the Apex Court in Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I. (AIR 2008 SC 1414), retention of the passport would tantamount to impounding of the passport, which is not permissible in law as impounding could only be as provided under the Passports Act and therefore, the order is to be quashed. 4. Facts of the case reveal that petitioner was not made available for trial. When petitioner, subsequently, appeared, to assure his presence for the purpose of trial, passport was directed to be surrendered. If the passport is to be released as sought for at present, petitioner will not be available to receive the sentence, if, ultimately, petitioner is to be convicted. According to the learned counsel, trial has already started and two witnesses were already examined. 5. In such circumstances, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy is directed to dispose the case expeditiously, at any rate, before 31.5.2010. CRMC 720/10 3 If the case cannot be disposed by that time, learned Magistrate may release the passport to the petitioner. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioner has to renew the air ticket and for renewing it passport is necessary. If that be so, petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate may release the passport for that specific purpose, to be surrendered, within a specified time. Petition is disposed. 19th March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv