The court emphasized the public interest in preventing the accused from fleeing during ongoing economic crime investigations, overriding the defendant's rights to travel.

ORDER

Challenging the order passed by the learned Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.170 of 2022 in Crime No.3/2021, dated 14.02.2023 in a petition filed by the 1^st respondent herein under Section 451 of Cr.P.C to return the passport bearing No.Z3805386 in interim custody, this revision case has been filed. 2. The 1^st respondent is the accused in Cr.No.3 of 2021 on the file of E.O.W, Trichy for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 120(b) of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act. In the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch had seized the passport bearing No.Z3805386 on 21.07.2021 and it was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam on 22.07.2021 and the same was received on file in R.P.R.No.205/2021 and 230/2021. Claiming that the petitioner is doing palm oil business in Singapore, Malaysia, UK and USA and for the purpose of restarting his business in foreign countries, he has filed a petition seeking interim custody of the passport.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1^st respondent is one among the 15 accused persons in a case of economic offence in a daily income scheme to the tune of more that Rs.89 Crores by defrauding 145 depositors. The learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to allow the application filed by the 1^st respondent under Section 451 of Cr.P.C thereby releasing the passport as interim custody by ordering to return the passport to the 1^st respondent with a direction that the 1^st respondent shall file his report on the file of investigating authority regarding his contact address during his foreign visit till the disposal of this case and has to co-operate with the proceedings. However, since interim stay has already been granted by this Court at the time of admission, the passport is not returned to the 1^st respondent and the same is pending with the Special Court under TNPID Act cases, Madurai. If the exercise of handing over the passport as an interim measure is implemented, the same would defeat the ends of the criminal case registered as against the various accused and there are ample opportunities for him to run away from India and settle elsewhere in foreign country, so that the defrauded depositors will be imperiled from getting back the money deposited. In view of the same, the impugned order need to be set aside by allowing the revision case.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that this case is one where 145 depositors are defrauded to a tune of more than Rs.89 Crores. In view of the same, if the interim custody of the passport is allowed, that will certainly affect the further investigation of the case and settling the defrauded depositors.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court has already issued notice to the 1^st respondent and private notice was also taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he has not turned up after having received a notice and his name has also been printed in the cause-list.

6. The learned Trial Court observed that seizing and holding a passport would curtail the fundamental rights of the 1^st respondent from doing business as guaranteed by our Constitution. Moreover, the exercise of seizure of his passport would violate his fundamental right to travel abroad. It is further observed that the respondent failed to give any objective assessment of the purpose of keeping the passport in the custody of the Court. On that premise, the