GIREESH T K Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an accused in crime No.300/02 along with three other persons. The case was ultimately chargesheeted before the court of Judicial Magistrate, I Class I, Perambra as CC No.294/02. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is stated to have got employed abroad and as he was not available before the court for trial, the charge against him was split up and was re numbered as CC No.175/07. It was while so that the petitioner, who continues to be employed abroad, landed in the Calicut Airport on 22/2/07. In terms of the provisions contained in Passport Act 1967, the Emigration Authorities seized his passport and has kept the same in their safe custody.

(2.) Subsequently, the petitioner got himself enlarged on bail and Ext.P3 is an order passed by the Court on 24/4/2007 exempting him from personal appearance. It is stated that he has to rejoin on duty on 16/5/2007 and that he has made all arrangements for his return travel as is evident from his air ticket produced as Ext.P4. However, in view of the fact that the passport is still under the custody of the second respondent, he will not be able to return to his employment. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition has been filed praying for directing release of his passport in order to enable him to return to his place of employment.

(3.) On behalf of the 2nd respondent, instructions have been taken by the Assistant Solicitor General and they seek to justify the seizure of the passport and its retention. Although the respondents cannot be faulted for the steps they have taken, in the written instruction itself it is stated that if there is a specific order of this court exempting the petitioner from his personal presence, the passport could be released. This evidently means that the 2nd respondent is unaware of the exemption order passed by the court, which has been produced by the petitioner as Ext.P3.