Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Samapti Chatterjee, J.
Sirichai Sasanarakhit - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.R No. 2315 of 2014
Decided On : 24-12-2014
For the Petitioners:Mr. Biplab Mitra, Learned, Abhijit Kumar Adhya, learned, Amajit De, Learned and Treena Mitra, Learned Advocates.
For the De facto :Siladitya Sanyal, Learned and Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Learned, Advocates.
For the State :Manjit Singh, Learned Public Prosecutor and Ayan Bhattacharyya, Learned, Advocate.
The court held that the passport of the petitioner was rightly impounded by the prosecution under Section 104 of the CrPC, as the charges against him were grievous in nature and he was restrained from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
Headnote:
PASSPORT - IMPOUNDMENT - SECTION 104 OF CRPC - SECTION 10(3)(E) OF PASSPORT ACT - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: The court held that the passport of the petitioner was rightly impounded by the prosecution under Section 104 of the CrPC, as the charges against him were grievous in nature and he was restrained from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. The court also noted that the Passport Authority had declined to impound the petitioner's passport as it was issued by the Thailand Passport Authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a citizen of Thailand, was arrested in connection with the theft of valuable antique articles from the museum of Bellurmath at Bally, Howrah. He was granted bail on the condition that he would not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. The petitioner filed an application for the return of his passport and VISA, which was rejected by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were grievous in nature and that he was restrained from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. The court also noted that the Passport Authority had declined to impound the petitioner's passport as it was issued by the Thailand Passport Authority.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for the return of his passport and VISA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for the return of his passport and VISA, as the charges against him were grievous in nature and he was restrained from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition.
Samapti Chatterjee, J.
The petitioner filed the instant revisional application assailing the Order dated 2nd June, 2014 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Howrah rejecting the petitioner's prayer for returning the passport and VISA in connection with Bally P.S. Case No. 375 of 2013 under Sections 401/379/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Mr. Biplab Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a citizen of Thailand and he has come to Kolkata as a tourist.
3. Mr. Mitra further submitted that on 16th July, 2013 at about 4:25 P.M. Swami Bodhisswatananda @ Pinki Maharaj of Ramkrishna Mission Bellur, Howrah lodged a written complaint that when Maharaj Ji entered the museum then he found that Model No. E-5 was lying flat and Model Cabinet overturned inside the cabinet. Upon enquiry he found that one of the teeth of Sree Sree Sarada Maa was missing along with Rudraksha Mala. He further found that 2 Bel Metal and 1 Bati were also missing. He immediately complained to his higher official. As a result the above Bally Police Station case was initiated against the petitioner.
4. Mr. Mitra further contended that police started investigation and warrant of arrest was also issued and the petitioner was arrested from Gorakshapur, U.P. and was produced before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakshapur, U.P and was taken to police custody for 14 days there and from U.P he was brought to West Bengal and produced before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah.
5. Mr. Mitra further urged that the petitioner was produced on 23rd December, 2013 for recording his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which he declined. But the Passport and VISA of the petitioner were seized by the police. Thereafter on 6th February, 2014 petitioner was granted bail with surety of 10,000/- each, one of whom must be cash surety, on condition that without informing and without prior permission the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court permanently and shall furnish a local address to the Investigating Officer, he shall also cooperate in the interest of investigation and shall not cause any endeavour of tampering the prosecution's case.
6. Mr. Mitra further submitted that the wife of the petitioner Mrs. Phatthara Wadee Kethlaysang aged about 49 years was diagnosed cancer in the left breast since 10th May, 2013. Therefore, the petitioner made a prayer before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah for return of his Passport and VISA which was rejected by the impugned Order dated 2nd June, 2014.
7. Mr. Mitra further vehemently argued that Learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that it was absolutely absurd and impossible that in presence of high security guard, public and also in presence of close circuit camera valuable antique goods like Rudraksh Mala, 2 Bel Metal and 1 Bati, and one teeth of Sree Sree Sarada Maa could be stolen from the museum.
8. Mr. Mitra also contended that Learned Magistrate should have considered that the petitioner's wife has been suffering from cancer since 10th May, 2013, therefore, he should be allowed to go to Thailand.
9. Mr. Mitra further contended that rejection of prayer of the petitioner for return of his Passport and VISA by the Learned Magistrate is contrary to the Section 10 Sub Section 3 (e) of the Passport Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which is set out hereunder :-
"10 (3) The Passport Authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document,-
(e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal Court in India,"
10. Mr. Mitra further vehemently contended that impounding of the Passport under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C by the Learned Magistrate is illegal and clearly barred by Section 10 Sub Section 3 (e) of the Passport Act.
11. Mr. Mitra further submitted that Passport can
