High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 4.1.2008 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL CRL.O.P.No.34926 of 2007 Natarajkumar M/A 40S/o ChandrasekaranApt3, GRN Srivaru5 Palat Narayaniammal Road,Mahalingapuram Chennai 34..Petitionervs.Deputy Superintendent of PoliceCBI BS and FCBangalore(Cr.No.5/E/2002)..RespondentCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to directthe respondent to return the passport of the petitioner passport bearingNo.B2775046 issued on 26.9.2000 valid upto 25.9.2010 to the petitionerSetaside order dated 5.5.2005 passed in Crl.Mp.No.1431 of 2005 on the fileof the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai anddirecting the respondent to return the pass port bearing No.BZ775946 tothe petitioner immediately.For petitioner:Mr.B.Kumar Senior Counsel for M/s R.Loganathan For respondent:Mr.N.Chandrasekaranfor C.B.I.O R D E RThe petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to returnthe passport of the petitioner bearing No.B2775046. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The petitioner who is ranked as A3 faces a case for offencespunishable under section 120B read with section 420, 467, 468 and 471 ofthe Indian Penal Code. The charge as against the petitioner is that hebeing a party to a criminal conspiracy hatched in the company of otherDirectors of M/s Pan Clothing and Consolidated Co.Ltd., during the periodfrom 1997-2000 forged the documents offered as collateral security andcheated the Punjab and Sind Bank to the tune of Rs.4,297 lakhs. Duringthe course of investigation the respondent police seized the passport ofthe petitioner also.3.The petitioner has contended that the entire dues to the Punjaband Sind Bank were completely liquidated in the aftermath of a compromiseclinched between the Company of the petitioner and the Punjab and SindBank and thereupon the recovery proceedings initiated by the Punjab andSind Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai was withdrawn. Itis his further contention that the petitioner who is now serving as theGeneral Manager of MEPZ, Tambaram requires the passport seized by therespondent police for the purpose of touring foreign countries to attendquarterly business review meetings. Further, he has to hold severalbusiness meetings with the prospective clients for generation of hisbusiness. Though the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner stooddismissed, he prays that his passport may be returned for the aforesaidreasons taking into account the development in this case.4.The respondent would counter the claim of the petitioner seekingreturn of his passport on the ground that the petitioner is facing aserious charge of criminal conspiracy and also forgery of propertydocuments offered as collateral security. The petitioner cited businessreasons for return of his passport before the trial Court. But the trialCourt as well as this Court has taken a view that the petitioner is notentitled to return of passport at this crucial stage of the case. It isvehemently contended by the respondent in the counter filed by him thatthere is every possibility for the petitioner/accused to flee from thecountry.5.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldsubmit that the respondent has no authority to retain the passport seizedduring the course of investigation, after the investigation was completedand chargesheet was laid before the competent Court. It is his furthersubmission that inasmuch as the entire dues to the bank was alreadyliquidated by the petitioner there is no point in retaining the passportby the respondent police. The petitioner who has a very brilliantacademic record has entered into an attractive business venture whichrequires frequent travel to foreign countries. Therefore, the learnedsenior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the passport may beordered to be returned to the petitioner. The learned Special PublicProsecutor for the respondent would contend that the petitioner facesgrave charges before the trial Court. On one pretext or the other thecharges could not be framed by the trial Court. It is his apprehension https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioner may abscond from justice if the passport is released.He also would refer to the earlier decision of this Court not to releasethe passport to the petitioner.6.There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner hasdischarged the entire liability payable by M/s Pan Clothing andConsolidated Co.Ltd., The recovery proceedings initiated by the Punjab andSind Bank as against the petitioner and others before the Debts RecoveryTribunal were also withdrawn on account of the effective settlement andthe consequent repayment made by the said Company to the Bank. Of course,the petitioner is also facing a charge of conspiracy and also forgery ofcertain documents furnished as collateral security. The fact remains thatthe case has originated way back in the year 2002. In spite of the factthat the case is ripe for framing charges even from the year 2005, it isfound that charges have not been so far framed by the trial Court. It isnot the contention of the respondent that on account of the dilatorytactics adopted by the petitioner, the charges cannot be framed by thetrial Court. The petitioner cannot be found fault with for the absence ofthe other accused which contributed for the delay in framing the charges.7.There is no dispute to the fact that the passport of thepetitioner which was seized by the respondent during the course ofinvestigation has no relevance to the case. The respondent has indirectlystalled the prospects of the petitioner going abroad by retaining hispassport even after the investigation was completed. It is made clearthat a right of a person to travel abroad is a fundamental rightguaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Unless acompetent Court interdicts or prevents a person from traveling abroad byimpounding the passport, no investigating agency can simply retain thepassport restraining the citizen from going abroad. Admittedly, thepassport was not impounded as per the orders passed by the competentcourt. When the passport has no nexus with the crime alleged to have beencommitted by the petitioner and no order has also been passed by acompetent Court to impound the passport, the respondent has no authorityto retain the passport of the petitioner, especially, after theinvestigation was completed.8.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitionerhas a very good academic record. He has taken up an attractiveassignment. The present job of the petitioner requires his presence inforeign countries also. The passport of the petitioner has been retainedfor about five long years by the respondent police. The same cannot beretained any further crippling the business venture of the petitioner.The petitioner cannot be forced to forego his business interest on accountof the pendency of this case. Except the bald allegation that there isevery possibility of the petitioner to flee from justice, there is nomaterial to show that there was any attempt made by the petitioner to givea slip to the dragnet of the prosecuting agency. The Court finds that itwill take some time for the termination of the trial. Therefore, thisCourt is inclined to accede to the plea of the petitioner with certain https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conditions.9.In view of the above, the respondent is directed to return thepassport of the petitioner forthwith and the petitioner is directed toappear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court forthe purpose of trial of this Case. Accordingly the petition standsallowed. salSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI BS and FC Bangalore2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.3. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.4. -do- Thro' The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.+1 cc to M/s.R.Loganathan, Advocate Sr.No.396.AKR(CO)DCP/5.1CRL.O.P.NO.34926/2007