HYDRALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in a split up case pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur. Previously, when the trial proceeded against the co-accused, he remained at large. The case against him was split up and later included in the long pending cases. Subsequently, after his surrender before the magistrate the case taken back and re- numbered is now pending for trial. While enlarging him on bail, it is stated, among other conditions the magistrate directed him to furnish details of his passport. That having been complied with, pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner was intimated to the Passport Authority. When he moved an application for renewal of his passport he was informed by the Passport Authority that unless he obtains permission from the court where the criminal case is pending, his request for renewal cannot be entertained. Petitioner thereupon moved an application seeking permission of the court to go abroad stating that the passport officer has issued him a show cause notice why his passport should not be impounded in view of the pendency of the criminal case. Learned magistrate turned down that application vide Annexure V order holding that previous order passed by his predecessor directing for furnishing of passport details and sending such details to the passport authority, is not liable to be reviewed. Challenging Annexure V order petitioner has filed this petition invoking for the exercise of the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the code, to grant him permission to go abroad.

(2.) I heard the counsel for petitioner and also learned Public Prosecutor. The question emerging for consideration is whether during the pendency of criminal proceedings petitioner can be permitted to go abroad by the court. True, inordinate delay in completion of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the case has been caused on his default to appear before the court, whatever be the reasons for his non appearance. Now, it is submitted after framing of charge against him the case awaits trial. Going through Annexure V order, I find the magistrate has not gone into the question whether the request of the petitioner for permission to go abroad can be entertained or not, but, his request has been turned down on the premise that the magistrate has no competency to review the order passed by his predecessor directing for furnishing of passport details and intimating of the same to the passport authority. The order would also reflect that, according to the magistrate, without the backing of any statutory provision he cannot give any direction to the passport authority that the pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for renewal of his passport.

(3.) Views expressed as aforesaid by the magistrate and the conclusion drawn in Annexure V order are patently wrong. Learned magistrate has to consider the request of the petitioner with reference to the facts and circumstances presented in the case and also whether there is any possibility of completing the trial within a reasonable time, if he is forced to remain at the place interdicting him from going abroad. So far as renewal of the passport, if need be, it can be granted imposing condition that without getting permission from court he shall not leave the country.