Kerala High Court
Latef Bin Abdul Jamil vs State Of Kerala on 14 May, 2014
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAYOF JUNE 2014/13TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 2949 of 2014
---------------------------
CRL.M.P.NO.1507/2014 IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 295/2014 OF
II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED 14-05-2014
....
CC NO.1233/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KOYILANDY
....
CRIME NO.269/2013 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION
.....
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
LATEF BIN ABDUL JAMIL, AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O. AMBDUL JAMIL,
RESIDING AT KA-1-1 TAMEN FREE SCHOOL,
10460, PULAU, PINANG, MALAYASIA.
BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
Crl.MC.No. 2949 of 2014
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
---------------------------------------------
ANX.1. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3-5-2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN B.A.
2894/13.
ANX.2. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13-12-13 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
CRL. M.A. 10127/13 IN B.A. 2894/13.
ANX.3. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30-4-2014 OF THE COURT OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOYILANDY IN C.C. 1233/2013.
ANX.4. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14-5-2014 OF THE COURT OF SESSION,
KOZHIKODE DIVISION IN CRL. M.P.1507/14 IN CRL. APPEAL NO. 295/2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
----------------------------------------------- N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2949 of 2014
-------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2014
ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the condition imposed by the court of Sessions, Kozhikode in Crl.M.P.No.1507/2014 in Crl.Appeal No.295/2014 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code')
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is a Malaysian citizen having passport No.A24973051 and he came to India on a multiple entry visa issued by Republic of India on 14/03/2012 and it was having validity up to 13/03/2013. The grandfather of the petitioner was an Indian citizen. His two sisters were married to Indian citizens and he proposed to marry a kearalite woman. Since he had not produced the residence certificate for residing in India, though he obtained a certificate later and approached the Superintendent of Police Rural Vadakara for attestation on 13/03/2013, he was detained in his office and Crl.M.C.No.2949 of 2014 2 thereafter a case was registered as Crime No.269/2013 and he was arrested and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy and he was remanded to custody and till 07/05/2013 he was in jail and he was granted bail by this Court and accordingly released on bail on 07/05/2013. The passport was directed not to be returned till the disposal of the trial. He was tried and later convicted by the learned Magistrate and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment and pay fine. He filed appeal against the same. The learned Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and suspended the sentence on condition of executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate within one week and further directed that the passport of the petitioner shall not be returned until further orders and he shall reside in the address furnished before the court below. The condition imposed by the court below is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Crl.M.C.No.2949 of 2014 3 learned Public Prosecutor .
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted in fact he was in jail for 55 days and the court below also imposed only 55 days substantiative sentence and what remains to be complied with is only payment of fine for which the passport of the petitioner need not be detained as trial has already been completed.
5. On the other hand the application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that if the passport is given to him, he will leave the county.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Crime No.269/2013 of Koyilandy Police Station alleging commission of the offence under Section clause 7 of Foreigners' Order 1948 r/w Section 14
(c) of the Foreigners' Act and Section 5 of the Registration of Foreigners' Act 1946 r/w Rule 6 of the Registration of the Foreigners' Rules, 1992. After filing of the final report, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.1233/2013. He was arrested on 13/03/2013 and he was released on 07/05/2013. He was granted bail as per order of this Court in Bail Appl. No.2894/2013 dated 03/05/2013 and Crl.M.C.No.2949 of 2014 4 one of the conditions imposed was that his passport should not be returned till the disposal of the trial and he will have to reside in the address mentioned by the petitioner till the trial of the case is over. Now as per Annexure-3 judgment, after trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty and clause 7 of Foreigners' Order r/w Section 14(c) of the Foreigners' Act and under Section 5 of the Registration of Foreigners' Act 1946 r/w Rule 6 of the Registration of the Foreigners' Rules, 1992 and convicted him thereunder and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 55 days and also to pay a fine of Rs.7500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under clause 7 of Foreigners' Order r/w Section 14(c) of the Foreigners' Act and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 5 of the Registration of Foreigners' Act 1946 r/w Rule 6 of the Registration of the Foreigners' Rules, 1992. Set off was allowed for a period of detention undergone by him for the period from 13/03/2013 to 7/05/2013. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.295/2014 Crl.M.C.No.2949 of 2014 5 and also moved Crl.M.C. 1507/2014 for suspension of sentence and the learned vacation judge by the impugned Annexure-4 order suspended the sentence on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties and also directed the passport shall not be returned until further orders and he shall reside in the address furnished before the court below. The direction not to release passport is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.
7. It is seen from the judgment itself that he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 55 days and also to pay a total fine of Rs.8500/- with default sentence. In fact the substantive sentence imposed by the court below has already been undergone by him as it is seen from the judgment itself that he was in jail from 13/03/2013 to 07/05/2013 and set of was allowed for this period. So what remains to be done by the petitioner is to pay of the fine for which purpose the passport of the petitioner need not be detained. So this court feels that apart from the condition imposed by the court below directing the petitioner to deposit the fine amount before the court below as further condition for suspending the sentence Crl.M.C.No.2949 of 2014 6 will be sufficient and once he complies with the same the passport can be returned to him but leaving India will be subject to getting permission from the appellate court. So the petition is disposed of as follows:
The direction of the learned Sessions Judge not to release the passport is set aside as even this Court while granting bail only wanted to detain the passport till the trial of the case is over. In this case the trial is over as he has already undergone the substantive sentence imposed. So the passport need not be detained and the passport can be returned to the petitioner on further condition of depositing the fine amount of Rs.8500/- before the trial court and if ultimately the conviction and sentence are confirmed then this amount can be adjusted towards the fine to be realised from the petitioner.
With the above modification, the petition is disposed of.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below immediately.
Sd/- K.RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE MJL