Natarajkumar vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI BS and FC

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to return the passport of the petitioner bearing No. B2775046.

The petitioner who is ranked as A3 faces a case for offences punishable u/s 120B read with Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal

Code. The charge as against the petitioner is that he being a party to a criminal conspiracy hatched in the company of other Directors of M/s Pan

Clothing and Consolidated Co. Ltd., during the period from 1997-2000 forged the documents offered as collateral security and cheated the

Punjab and Sind Bank to the tune of Rs. 4,297 lakhs. During the course of investigation the respondent police seized the passport of the petitioner

also.

The petitioner has contended that the entire dues to the Punjab and Sind Bank were completely liquidated in the aftermath of a compromise

clinched between the Company of the petitioner and the Punjab and Sind Bank and thereupon the recovery proceedings initiated by the Punjab

and Sind Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai was withdrawn. It is his further contention that the petitioner who is now serving as

the General Manager of MEPZ, Tambaram requires the passport seized by the respondent police for the purpose of touring foreign countries to

attend quarterly business review meetings. Further, he has to hold several business meetings with the prospective clients for generation of his

business. Though the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner stood dismissed, he prays that his passport may be returned for the aforesaid reasons

taking into account the development in this case.

The respondent would counter the claim of the petitioner seeking return of his passport on the ground that the petitioner is facing a serious

charge of criminal conspiracy and also forgery of property documents offered as collateral security. The petitioner cited business reasons for return

of his passport before the trial Court. But the trial Court as well as this Court has taken a view that the petitioner is not entitled to return of

passport at this crucial stage of the case. It is vehemently contended by the respondent in the counter filed by him that there is every possibility for

the petitioner/accused to flee from the country.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has no authority to retain the passport seized during the

course of investigation, after the investigation was completed and chargesheet was laid before the competent Court. It is his further submission that

inasmuch as the entire dues to the bank was already liquidated by the petitioner there is no point in retaining the passport by the respondent police.

The petitioner who has a very brilliant academic record has entered into an attractive business venture which requires frequent travel to foreign

countries. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the passport may be ordered to be returned to the petitioner.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent would contend that the petitioner faces grave charges before the trial Court. On one

pretext or the other the charges could not be framed by the trial Court. It is his apprehension that the petitioner may abscond from justice if the

passport is released. He also would refer to the earlier decision of this Court not to release the passport to the petitioner.

There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner has discharged the entire liability payable by M/s Pan Clothing and Consolidated Co.Ltd., The

recovery proceedings initiated by the Punjab and Sind Bank as against the petitioner and others before the Debts Recovery Tribunal were also

withdrawn on account of the effective settlement and the consequent repayment made by the said Company to the Bank. Of course, the petitioner

is also facing a charge of conspiracy and also forgery of certain documents furnished as collateral security. The fact remains that the case has

originated way back in the year 2002. In spite of the fact that the case is ripe for framing charges even from the year 2005, it is found that charges

have not been so far framed by the trial Court. It is not the contention of the respondent that on account of the dilatory tactics adopted by the

petitioner, the charges cannot be framed by the trial Court. The petitioner cannot be found fault with for the absence of the other accused which

contributed for the delay in framing the charges.

There is no dispute to the fact that the passport of the petitioner which was seized by the respondent during the course of investigation has no

relevance to the case. The respondent has indirectly stalled the prospects of the petitioner going abroad by retaining his passport even after the

investigation was completed. It is made clear that a right of a person to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. Unless a competent Court interdicts or prevents a person from traveling abroad by impounding the passport, no investigating

agency can simply retain the passport restraining the citizen from going abroad. Admittedly, the passport was not impounded as per the orders

passed by the competent court. When the passport has no nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and no order has

also been passed by a competent Court to impound the passport, the respondent has no authority to retain the passport of the petitioner,

especially, after the investigation was completed.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has a very good academic record. He has taken up an attractive assignment. The

present job of the petitioner requires his presence in foreign countries also. The passport of the petitioner has been retained for about five long

years by the respondent police. The same cannot be retained any further crippling the business venture of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be

forced to forego his business interest on account of the pendency of this case. Except the bald allegation that there is every possibility of the

petitioner to flee from justice, there is no material to show that there was any attempt made by the petitioner to give a slip to the dragnet of the

prosecuting agency. The Court finds that it will take some time for the termination of the trial. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accede to the plea

of the petitioner with certain conditions.

In view of the above, the respondent is directed to return the passport of the petitioner forthwith and the petitioner is directed to appear before

the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court for the purpose of trial of this Case. Accordingly the petition stands allowed.