( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of Cr. R. No. 13/83 and Cr. M. (M) 130/83 both moved by the Delhi Admin. These are against the orders of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mr. K. B. Andley, directing return of the passports on uperdari to respondents.

( 2 ) THE background is that two cases stand registered u/ss 420/468471/120-B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 and 26 of Immigration Act, 1922 at Police Station Palam Airport. They are to the effect that some uncrupulous persons have been sending Indian citizens to Middle East countries on the basis of forged Protector of Emigrants clearing stamps besides forged signatures of Protector of Emigrants, New Delhi. The passports of the respondents who in one case are 17 in number and in the other 15, were seized after they had been initially cleared by the air-port staff for going abroad. The investigation later by the crime branch revealed that those stamps and signatures of the Protector of Emigrants were, in-fact forged, The investigation is still continuing and no challans have been submitted in any court, although the cases were registered in October and Nov. , 1982.

( 3 ) SO far as the respondents are concerned, it is not the case of the investigating agency that they have committed any offence or that they have been instrument in the said forgeries. The racket instead has been enacted by some other persons who have rather duped these respondents by extracting various amounts from them. It is stated that in case these passports are returned to the respondents valuable evidence would not be available at the trial stage against the real culprits and thus administration of justice will suffer.

( 4 ) THE respondents on their part have pleaded that these passports belong to them which are otherwise genuine, and they want to use them for going abroad. Some of them have already jobs there from where they had come on leave and wanted to go back. The others have assurances of jobs, and as such want to join them. The action of the police in seizing the passports it has been contended, has resulted in grave injury to them inasmuch as they are all stranded in India and had been made to either lose their jobs or the wages for all this period.

( 5 ) MR. Balbir Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate (M. M.), on applications moved by different respondents, directed the release of their passports and the air tickets. Against those orders, two revision petitions were moved by the State before Shri K. B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge. They were disposed of by the impugned orders. It was accepted that the revision petition could be maintained as thereby the matters relating to return of passports were finally decided, and to that extend they could not be treated as interlocutory orders. On merits the offer made by the State was taken note that the prosecution agency was prepared to help the respondents in getting them duplicate passports prepared from the authorities concerned. The respondents were directed to avail of this offer. It was also observed that the blanket retention of the passports by the investigation agency could not be permitted who was required to complete the remaining investigation at least so far as it required the retention of the passports of the respondent maximum within one month of the dates of the orders, made in Dec. and Jan. , 1983. Some time was further allowed to the investigation agency to retain the passports after which they were required to be returned.

( 6 ) IT is against these orders of the Additional Session Judge that the State has now moved the present revision and the Cr. M. (M) u/s 482 Criminal Procedure Code.

( 7 ) AT the outset it must be taken note that it has been unfortunate that in spite of the directions of the Additional Sessions Judge, the investigation of the case which involved the retention of the passports of the respondents has not been completed. The matters have been allowed to drag on in spite of the great hardship resulting to the respo