CHINARI JAWAHARILAL PATRO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition seeking following reliefs:

(2.) FACTS involved in the case is that on receipt of credible information regarding possession of huge assets by the petitioner no.1, the then M.V.I. in the office of the R.T.O., Chandikhole made a preliminary enquiry by the Vigilance Police and it was found that petitioner no.1 was in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 1,03,40,132/ -excess to his known and lawful sources of income to which he could not satisfactorily account for, consequently a case was registered vide Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.03 dated 11.2.2004. After completion of Investigation, the Vigilance Police submitted charge sheet no.23 dated 12.12.2008 involving petitioners for the offence under Section 13(2) READ WITH Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are facing trial In the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R.No.31 of 2009. The further submission of the petitioners is that in the above investigation process during search in the house of the petitioners on 10.2.2004 the Vigilance Authority seized certain documents including the passports bearing Passport No.S. 167641 and Passport No.S -167634 belonging to the petitioner nos.1 and 2 respectively. Since the period of the passports was to expire, on an application of the petitioners, the Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar by his order dated 4.9.2007 permitted the passports of both the petitioners to be returned for renewal with a direction to the petitioners to file back the seized passports before the expiry of a period of one month from the date of the order after getting it renewed. Following the direction of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar and upon receipt of the certified copy of the said order by the petitioners on 24.9.2007, the petitioners applied the Investigating Officer for release of the passports to them for the purpose of renewal of the same, as a consequence of which, both the passports under seizure were returned back to the petitioners and the petitioners applied the Passports Authority for renewal of the same on the strength of the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar. The Passport Authority also renewed both the passports, while renewing the passport bearing Passport No. S - 167641 involving the petitioner no. 1 only for a period of one year, the said authority renewed the passport of petitioner no.2 for a period of ten years. The passport belonging to the husband was received after being renewed, across the counter of the Passport Office whereas the passport concerning the petitioner no.2 was received by the petitioner towards end of October, 2007, being sent through post. When the petitioners were making attempt to return back the passports to the Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar, in a mysterious situation, the Passport authority asked the petitioners for surrendering the passports to the said authority, as they have been directed by the Vigilance Department to hand over the passports instead of submitting it back to the Vigilance Court submitted the same to the passport authority. Under compelling situation, the petitioners were coerced to submit both the passports with the Passport Authority vide their letter dated 5.11.2007. While the matter stood thus, as the petitioners were required to travel beyond the territory of the Country, they moved an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Vigilance Court for release of the passports to visit their relative at London. It is alleged that the application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was illegally rejected by the trial court by order dated 1.7.2013 holding that the offence is serious in nature. The Vigilance Court not only refused to return the passports but also refused to grant permission to the accused persons to go to London on the premises that possibility of non -return of the accused persons from London cannot be ruled out. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners moved CRLREV No.629 of 2013 before this Court and this Court allowed the said Criminal Revision by order dated 22.1.2014 upon setting aside the rejection order passed by the Vigilance Court with the following observation:

(3.) THE petitioners alleged that during pendency of the aforesaid criminal revision, the Passport Officer produced a letter dated 2.12.2013 before this Court issued by the Passport Officer, Bhubaneswar indicating impounding of both the passports by the Passport Authority on 2.12.2013. Since this Court in disposing the criminal revision did not decide anything on the impounding of the passports as it was beyond its scope it allowed the petitioners to challenge any such order before the appropriate authority. The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the passport Authority impounding their passports. Challenging the impugned order, the petitioners submit that attempt of Passport Officer is to circumvent their chance to move abroad for valid reasons. Further, the order of impounding is also not only contrary to the provisions contained in the Passports Act, 1967 but also bad in law and in violation of principle of natural justice. In as much as, the impounding order was also passed on the date on which the petitioners were also issued with another letter asking them to file their show cause in the matter of impounding of the passports.