AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Tamilvanan, J.—Challenging the order, dated 16.11.2009 made in Crl. M. P. No. 1047 of 2009 in C.C. No. 12 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, the petitioner/A2 has preferred this revision.
The petitioner/A2 had filed a petition for return of passport. It is not in dispute that he pleaded guilty and was convicted under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(b), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act for having been found in possession of heroin of in-between quantity.
Mr. T.K. Sampath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the conviction and sentence, he was sent to prison and after the term of substantive sentence, he was released, however, his passport was not returned by the respondent for the reasons best known to them. Hence, he filed a petition before the trial court, seeking return of the passport.
The Court below dismissed the petition, on the ground that permanent residence of the petitioner / A2 in Trichy was not stated by him.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was residing at Trichy previously, subsequently, he shifted his resident to Chennai and at present he is residing at No. 13, Mosque Street, (Near Meenakshi Amman Pet Farook Mahal), Royapuram, Chennai � 13.
Mr. R. Dhanapalraj, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent raised his objection stating that the Royapuram address given by the petitioner is different from the address given in the passport, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the return of passport.
On the side of the petitioner, in order to substantiate the permanent address of the petitioner, Family cards for the year 1998-2003, 2005-2009, original address proof issued by the trial court were produced, wherein the petitioner''s name is stated as Shahul Hameed @ Farook Jaleel, S/o. Late Shahul.
The petitioner has also filed an affidavit stating that he was in Trichy, while applying for the passport at Mettu Street, Varaganery Palakasa and in the affidavit, the petitioner has further stated that he has got friends in Malaysia and they promised the petitioner to get a job in Malaysia.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor has not disputed the fact that the petitioner/A2 is convicted under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(b), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act for 3 1/2 years. After having undergone the sentence, he was released. The only objection raised by the respondent is with regard to the permanent address of the petitioner.
The Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/A2 on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished his permanent address and also the reason for getting back the passport, now by way of affidavit and supporting documents, the petitioner has substantiated his claim.
On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find it just and reasonable to allow this revision petition.
In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to return the passport to the petitioner, after substituting a xerox copy and on undertaking to produce the same, as and when required by the Court below.