Kerala High Court
Nisham vs State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2014
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2014/12TH PHALGUNA, 1935
CRL.REV.PET.NO. 439 OF 2014 ()
-------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO. 168 OF 2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,MANJERI
CRIME NO. 718 OF 2013 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
--------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :
----------------------------------
NISHAM,
S/O. MOIDHEENKUTTY, KODALI HOUSE,
KARULAI AMSOM DESOM,
NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ
SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
SRI.P.VINODKUMAR
SMT.SMITHA GEORGE
COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
-------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
NS
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No.439 of 2014
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March 2014
O R D E R
Petitioner who is accused in Crime No.718 of 2013 of the Karipur Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.420, 408 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.12(1)(b) of the Passport Act challenges the order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri on Crl. M.P. No.168 of 2014 refusing to deliver the impugned passport to the petitioner, under Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner has committed offences as aforesaid by forging the passport in whatever way it is alleged. The petitioner came to the Karipur Airport from Jeddah making use of that passport and the immigration authorities on detecting the offence, detained the petitioner and the passport. The Police were informed who registered Crime No.718 of 2013 as aforesaid. The passport was taken to Crl. R.P. No.439 of 2014 2 custody. The petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No.168 of 2014 requesting to return the passport since he is in urgent need of it to renew his visa which is going to expire shortly. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing objection of the respondents refused the request.
3. Learned counsel submits that offences under the Indian Penal Code are not made out and that the offence under the Passport Act is a minor offence. It is also submitted that unless the passport is returned to the petitioner, even for a short while, the petitioner will not be able to renew his visa which is to expire shortly. The petitioner would loose his job. According to the learned counsel, appropriate conditions could be imposed on the petitioner if the passport is returned to him. It is also submitted that the question whether the passport is forged or not should depend on the expert opinion that the respondents might obtain as regards the impugned passport.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the impugned passport Crl. R.P. No.439 of 2014 3 which is the subject matter of the case cannot be returned since if returned, it would be used as genuine for various purpose. Possibility of the passport being destroyed or lost cannot also be ruled out.
5. At this stage, I am not required to go into the question whether the petitioner has committed any offence as alleged. If expert opinion on the passport is required, that may have to be obtained. Hence I leave that matter there.
6. Now the question is whether for any purpose whatsoever, the impugned passport could be returned to the petitioner? There could be no doubt that if the passport, which according to the respondents is forged is returned, it will be made use of as genuine, may be for the purpose of renewing the visa or for other purpose. Moreover possibility of the passport being destroyed or lost on whatever account it be, if returned to the petitioner cannot also be ruled out in which case the prosecution case would probably come to an end if at all the allegation of forgery is true. Therefore, I do not find Crl. R.P. No.439 of 2014 4 reason to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel submitted that in case expert opinion is received and no offence is made out, petitioner may be given opportunity to ask for return of the passport again. If the petitioner is otherwise entitled to do so, it is open to him to request so.
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
JUDGE
/ True Copy /
NS P.A. To Judge