Biva Binimoy Chakma @ Beeva Binimoy ... vs N.R.Dhoot, Huf And Anr on 9 April, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Biva Binimoy Chakma @ Beeva Binimoy ... vs N.R.Dhoot, Huf And Anr on 9 April, 2019

Bench: Mridula Bhatkar

                                                                           904.APPR115_2019.doc


Vidya Amin.
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 481 OF 2016
                                          WITH
                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 115 OF 2019
                                            IN
                       CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 481 OF 2016

              Biva Binimoy Chakma @ Beeva
              Binimoy Chakma                                       ...        Applicant
                   vs.
              N.R. Dhoot, HUF & Anr.                               ...        Respondents

              Mr. H.H. Nagi a/w. Ms. Chaula Solanki i/b. Nagi and Associates,
              Advocate for the applicant.
              Mr. N.R. Dhoot, respondent No. 1 appears in person.
              Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP for the respondent/State.

                                                  CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATED: 9th April, 2019 P.C. :

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 8 th April, 2019, today the matter is taken on board. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused is present.

2. The party-in-person/respondent, who is original complainant, has objected to returning the passport of the applicant/accused. He submitted that the address given by the applicant/accused in her statement under section 313, which is marked at Exhibit "D" is 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2019 04:28:38 :::

904.APPR115_2019.doc only of Kandivali. She has not disclosed the correct address. He submitted that now the petitioner is retired and not working as air- hostess in any Airline.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused pointed out the affidavit dated 26 th March, 2018 filed by the applicant/accused and submitted that the present address of the applicant/accused is mentioned in the affidavit and that is the correct address. He submitted that today also the applicant/accused is in the employment of Air India and therefore, she needs her passport.

4. Perused Exhibit 'D". The statement under section 313 was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 13 th May, 2010. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not ask her full address but taken down that she is resident of Kandivali. The address given in the Revision Application and also in the affidavit is one and the same. Under such circumstances, the objection raised by the respondent/original complainant does not sustain. The order dated 19th March, 2019 passed by this Court of handing over the passport is maintained with following rider:

2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2019 04:28:38 :::

904.APPR115_2019.doc

(i) The applicant/accused is directed to inform the Court before she leaves India for her duty about her flight details after returning from duty;

(ii) The applicant/accused is directed to seek permission of the Court if she wants to travel abroad when she is not on duty;

(iii) The registry is directed to preserve the photocopy of the passport on record;

(iv) The certificate given to the respondent No. 1/complainant be cancelled.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2019 04:28:38 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court