THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14134 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 23.10.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2025 in S.C.No.295 of 2021 by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Metpalli, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners seeking return of their original passports, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Thelu Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has passed an erroneous order by dismissing the petition seeking release of the passports of the petitioners and that the trial Court cannot withhold their passports. He further submitted that the petitioners were acquitted in S.C.No.295 of 2021, following which they have filed the present petition before the trial Court, under Rule 219 of the Criminal Rules of Practice (for short, ‘the Rules’), seeking return of their original passports bearing Nos.S9709820 and U6152658, and the said petition was dismissed by the trial Court, which is not just and proper. Once the case ended in acquittal, the documents ought to have been returned under Rule 219 of the Rules, unless a reason is shown that the said documents are required for the purpose of appeal. Thus, the trial Court is not justified in dismissing the present petition. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated 23.10.2025, and allow the Criminal Petition.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has passed a reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere with the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. Since the present Crl.MP.No.79 of 2025 is filed under Rule 219 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“219. Return of documents - application to be made therefor:-

Applications from parties or other persons for the return of documents filed in Court shall be made to the Court in which they were originally filed. If application is made for any document which has been transmitted to another Court, the Court in which the document was originally filed shall itself apply for the transmission of the documents and on receipt shall return it to the applicant:

Provided that no document shall be returned unless the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied that it will not be required for reference in proceedings pending either before his own Court or the Court of Appeal or Revision.”

7. Thus, a document can be withheld by the trial Court only if the document is required in the proceedings in the Court of appeal. In the present case, the passports are sought to be returned. There is no reason how would be passport, a document, to be considered by the Court of appeal. It is borne out by record that the Sessions Case ended in acquittal, as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, pursuant to which the present petition has been filed. The trial Court is under an apprehension that appeal would be preferred by the State. There is no impediment and the State has every right to prefer an appeal, but this Court does not understand the reason assigned by the trial Court. The trial Court has emphasized on the proviso to Rule 219 of the Rules and has recorded its dissatisfaction by banking heavily upon the antecedents of the petitioners and observed that the petitioners have absconded earlier during the mid- trial and therefore, their presence may be required during pendency of the appeal and that there is every chance for the State to prefer an appeal. Therefore, till the expiry of appeal time, the trial Court was not inclined to release the passports. But that should not be the test to be applied. The proviso to Rule 219 of the Rules states that the Court should be prima facie satisfied that the document is not required during pendency of the proceedings in the appellate Court in order to return th