SATINDER MINHAS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-herein moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for directing the police to return his passport This request of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 16.5.1996. By this petition the petitioner wants this Court to quash the said order (Annexure P-4). Against the petitioner F.I.R. No.36 dated 13.2.1996 has been registered under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. The petitioner who is a non- resident Indian settled in Canada Sees that for the last 12 years he is doing business in Canada and that on a false complaint the F.I.R. has been registered against him. He contends that he filed criminal misc. petition 7837-M of 1996 on the file of this court for gashing the F.I.R. but the same was dismissed. The petitioner contends 69 he has been released on bail. He claims that the case is at the stage of investigation and is likely to take a long time, that he was already joined investigation and is no longer required for further investigation and that he is missing his family as well as his business at Canada. He claims that the rise will go on for a couple of years and in all probability he cannot stay here. Therefore, he has requested that police may be directed to return the passport which has been seized from him.

(2.) Replies have been filed on behalf of the State as well as the complainant. In the reply by the State, it has been stated that the charge sheet against the petitioner was presented on 3-7-1996 and that the petitioner is now facing trial for the commission of serious offences. It is alleged that he has cheated the complainant of goods worth Rs. 22 lacs. It is also alleged that if the passport is returned to the petitioner, he is not likely to come back from Canada and the trial of the case will be hampered. It is also alleged that the passport is a material document, which is necessary for comparison of the signatures of the petitioner and if this document is returned to the petitioner, and if it is lost either accidentally or purposely, will affect the case of the prosecution.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for both sides and have also perused the order of the learned Sessions Judge.