E. MUHAMMED FAROOQUE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No. 1446/14 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that petitioner was arrayed as accused in Crime No. 234/2011 of Pazhayangadi Police Station alleging commission of the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12(i)(b) of the Passport Act alleging that he had forged the passport, used the same as genuine document for the purpose of his travel. The passport was seized and produced before court. Later, he was granted bail. Thereafter, he filed Crl.M.P. No. 4079/11 before the lower court for return of the passport. But, that was dismissed by the court below. Thereafter, he filed Crl.M.C. No. 2676/2011 before this court for the same purpose and this court, by Annexure I order, directed the magistrate to release the passport on condition of furnishing a cash security of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and also on execution of the bond for Rs. 1,00,000/ - with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the magistrate and shall file an undertaking that he will appear before the trial court as and when required by the magistrate. Accordingly, on deposit of this amount and execution of the bond, the passport has been released to the petitioner. When he attempted to go abroad, the second respondent seized the passport on the ground that it is a forged one and it was sent to Regional Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram for verification and for further action. Thereafter, petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 1446/2014 for release the amount as the passport has been seized by the Immigration Authority of International Airport, Nedumbassery and that petition was dismissed by the learned magistrate by Annexure V Order which is being challenged by the petitioner before this court by filing this petition.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted, since the passport was seized by the Immigration Department, he was not able to return the passport and he had not committed any violation of the condition. So, the lower court was not justified in dismissing the application. The Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that they have not seized the passport on the ground that a crime has been registered against him, but they have got doubt regarding the genuineness of the passport and for the purpose of verifying the same, it was sent to Regional Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram after seizing the same.