Madras High Court
Mohammad Zaenal Arifin vs The State Represented By on 26 April, 2022
1/24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.25550 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.No.14126 of 2021
Mohammad Zaenal Arifin ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Minjur Police Station,
Minjur, Tiruvallur District.
(Crime No. 600 of 2021)
2. The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Union of India, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Immigration Officer,
Foreigners Regional Registration Office,
Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and
Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
No.26, Shastri Bhawan, Annexe Building,
26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of the Charge Sheet in
respect of the Petitioner/A1 in P.R.C. No.18 of 2021 pending committal on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court-II at Ponneri and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/24
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vasudevan
For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 and R3 : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan
Assistant Solicitor General
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for
the records of the Charge Sheet in respect of the Petitioner/A1 in P.R.C.
No.18 of 2021 pending committal on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court-II at Ponneri and quash the same.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution is that the
witness Tmt.Daisen Murali is working as the Assistant Director, Bureau of
Immigration, Chennai-Ennore Seaport, Chennai. A1 is a citizen of
Indonesia and is working as the 2nd Engineer in the Vessel MT Asian
Grace, flag South Korea. A2 is a citizen of Sourth Korea and is working as
the Captain of the MT Asian Grace, flag South Korea. A3 is a citizen of
India and Manager of Samudra Marine Service Pvt. Ltd and was
maintaining the above said Vessel “MT Asian Grace”.
3. On 02.09.2021, the above said Vessel “MT Asian Grace”
berthed at Kamarajar Port Ltd., Ennore and on 03.09.2021 early morning
at about 04.00 hrs., A1 disembarked from the above said Vessel and
entered into India without any valid permission or visa under the guise of
taking treatment and went outside the main gate of the above said port
and took treatment at National Hospital at No.12, Manali Express
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Highway, Eranavoor and was caught by the CISF, while he was entering
into the port around 10.00 hrs., through the above said main gate and A1
entered into the area in India without any valid documents required for
such entry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
14A(b) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004 and A2 and A3 abetted
A1 by facilitating him to go outside the Vessel and port and thereby A2
and A3 committed the offence punishable under Section 14C of the
Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004. Thereby, A1 appears to have
committed an offence punishable under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners
(Amendment) Act, 2004. A complaint came to be lodged against the
accused and based on the complaint, the petitioner was arrested and
remanded to Judicial custody. After grant of bail, now, he is made to stay
in the Special Camp for Foreigners at Trichy.
4. The submissions of Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the
petitioner are as under:-
i) The petitioner is a Seaman as per the meaning of Section 2(i)
of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992. He is an Indonesian Citizen
and working as 2nd Engineer on board the Ship “MT Asian Grace”, which
arrived at the Ennore Port on 02.09.2021 for the discharge of the Cargo.
ii) During the discharge operation, the 1 st Engineer allotted some
work to the petitioner and the petitioner was unable to complete the
work, which resulted in an argument between the 1st Engineer and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner and led to an altercation and the petitioner was assaulted by
the 1st Engineer, due to which, he suffered grievous injury on his right
forehead.
iii) The Vessel was berthed at Ennore port, where no hospital
facility was available and thereby, the petitioner, in order to save his life,
had to necessarily go to the nearest hospital for emergent treatment.
Since, the petitioner was bleeding profusely and was suffering from
unbearable pain, the petitioner had approached the Master of the Vessel
“MT Asian Grace”, who is arrayed as A2 in this case, for permission to get
a Shore Pass, to enable him to visit a Hospital for getting treatment.
iv) The Master of the Vessel had intimated to the Agent to get
necessary permission for the petitioner to go out for treatment. Since,
they have not got necessary permission and the petitioner was suffering
from unbearable pain and he was bleeding profusely, he had searched for
a location of the Hospital outside the Ennore Port through online search
and he had left the Vessel without informing anyone on board and
reached the Port premises through the CISF Security Main Gate.
v) The Security Personnel, finding that the petitioner was
profusely bleeding and was suffering from unbearable pain, allowed him
to go out and thereupon, he went out in search of the Hospital and had
taken treatment from one Dr.Anbarasu, who has been examined by the
police as LW10.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vi) The Doctor/LW10, finding that it was a Medico Legal case,
had wanted to inform the police, however, fearing that the Ship would be
detained, the petitioner had not preferred to intimate it to the police and
had immediately after treatment, returned to the Vessel through the main
entry where he was detained.
vii) The Doctor had sent the Medico Legal/Police intimation
report, which is annexed to the final report. As per the Medico Legal
report, the petitioner had suffered head injury and was having vomiting,
headache and seizure.
viii) It was a case of life or death of the petitioner. In such
emergency situation, the petitioner, without any understanding of the
legal consequences, rushed to the hospital, despite the fact that
permission was not granted to him. It is a case, where the petitioner had
not attempted to sneak illegally and he had passed through the Security
gates and there is no hidden/concealed/covered or veiled conduct in
reaching the hospital. The petitioner had passed through the CISF Main
Gate and had also returned back through the very same gate. The
petitioner had no mala fide intention other than to reach the hospital for
taking emergency treatment. Whereas while returning back, the petitioner
was detained at the gate and he was handed over to the investigation
officer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ix) The petitioner, being a Seaman, who has violated the Act, is
entitled to be removed from the Country in accordance with Section 6 of
the Foreigners Act and Para 6 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. Thereby,
the petitioner had sent a representation to the Immigration Authorities/3 rd
respondent on 11.10.2021 seeking to deport the petitioner to his Country.
x) The Indonesian Government has also given request to the
Government of India, to bear the expenses of the deportation through the
Marine Insurance Company and the said Insurance Company had also
undertaken to bear the expenses for deporting the petitioner out of the
Country.
xi) The petitioner had not entered into the Country to do any
illegal activity, but only in a situation of life or death, he had entered into
the Country for taking treatment and for nothing else. It is not the case,
where the petitioner stayed continuously without permission and
immediately within few hours, he had returned back through the main
gate to board the Vessel and he was detained at the gate.
xii) The petitioner has not been brought any adverse notice,
even in his Country. The petitioner has age old parents and he is married
and he got three children and the last child is only 7 months old. The
Republic of Indonesia has also certified the good conduct of the petitioner.
xiii) In a similar situation, when Indonesian citizens have been
detained for violation of Visa Rules in the case of 'Md Kameual Islam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and others Vs the State represented by the Inspector of Police,
Dindigul and others represented in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.5769, 6018
and 6103 of 2020, finding that even in cases, where there are prima
facie materials available to show that the offence has been made out, had
quashed the proceedings and permitted the petitioners to leave the
Country.
xiv) Merely because the petitioner is alleged to have
contravened the Provisions of the Foreigners Act, he cannot be termed as
a criminal. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail. Thereafter,
he was lodged in the Special Camp for Foreigners at Trichy. The Court
may sympathise with the situation and the proceedings may be quashed
invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
would submit that the petitioner, without obtaining permission, had gone
out of the Vessel and gone to the hospital and returned back to the Vessel
and finding that he had contravened the provisions of the Foreigners Act,
he was detained by the CISF Personnel, handed over to the Immigration
Officer and on the complaint given by the Assistant Director of Bureau of
Immigration, a case was registered in Crime No.600 of 2021 for offences
punishable under Sections 14A(b) and 14C of the Foreigners
(Amendment) Act, 2004 and after completion of investigation, the final
report has been filed by the 1st respondent for the offences punishable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under Sections 14A(b) and 14C of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act,
2004. He would submit that as per the charge sheet, there are 14
witnesses. He would fairly concede that other than having gone to the
hospital, the petitioner had not indulged in any illegal activity and the
petitioner had not been brought to any adverse notice and within few
hours of taking treatment, he had returned to the Port and he was
detained at the gate. He would also submit that in respect of Section 6(4)
of the Foreigners Act and Para 6 of the Foreigners Order, it is for the 2nd
respondent to take appropriate action. He would reiterate that the
petitioner had left the Port through the CISF Main gate and had returned
back through the CISF gate only and the petitioner had not hidden
himself.
6. Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the petitioner is
a Seaman and a Second Engineer in the Vessel “MT Asian Grace”. He
would further submit that the petitioner had left the Vessel without
obtaining permission and had gone to the hospital and returned back. He
would also submit that the petitioner had taken treatment in the hospital
and within few hours, he had returned back to the Vessel. Apart from the
fact that the petitioner had gone to the hospital for taking treatment, he
has not indulged in any other illegal activities. He would further submit
that the petitioner's representation under Section 6(4) of the Foreigners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act and under Para 6 of the Foreigners Order was received by the
respondent and it has not been considered so far. He would reiterate that
the petitioner had left the Port through the CISF Main gate and had
returned back through the main gate only and the petitioner had not
hidden or concealed himself.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
8. It is a very pathetic case, where the petitioner, who is a
Seaman, had come to India on voyage and had sustained injuries during
an altercation with a co-seaman. Though the petitioner had requested the
Master and the Agent to obtain permission to go out for treatment, it was
not obtained for him. The petitioner, who had suffered a head injury and
bleeding profusely on account of the assault, having left with no other
option, had left the Vessel to a nearby hospital without obtaining
permission. Admittedly, after taking treatment, he had returned back to
the Vessel immediately. In a life or death situation, he had taken a
misadventure which has lead him to criminal prosecution and detention in
an alien nation.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner had not involved in any illegal
activity other than having gone to the hospital on 2.9.2021 to take
treatment in an emergent situation. On 11.10.2021 itself, within two
months, as specified under the Act, the Master of the Vessel had sent a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
representation to the appropriate authority for deportation of the
petitioner within the time as required under Section 6(4) of the Foreigners
Act and under Para 6(1) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 to deport the
petitioner. The Indonesian Government, through the Insurance Company,
has also undertaken to deport the petitioner at the expense of the
Insurance Company, however, it has not been considered by the
Government.
10. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the relevant legal
provisions. Section 6 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 reads as under:-
"6. Obligations of masters of Vessels, etc. — (1)
The master of any Vessel landing or embarking at a part
in India, passengers coming to or going from that port
by sea and the pilot of any aircraft landing or embarking
at any place in India, passengers coming to or going
from that place by air, shall furnish to such person and
in such manner as may be prescribed a return giving the
prescribed particulars with respect to any passenger or
members of the crew, who are foreigners.
(2) Any District Magistrate and any
Commissioner of Police or, where there is no
Commissioner of Police, any Superintendent of Police
may, for any purpose connected with the enforcement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Act or any order made thereunder, require the
master of any such Vessel or the pilot of any such
aircraft to furnish such information as may be prescribed
in respect of passengers or members of the crew on
such Vessel or aircraft, as the case may be.
(3) Any passenger on such Vessel or such
aircraft and any member of the crew of such Vessel or
aircraft shall furnish to the master of the Vessel or the
pilot of the aircraft, as the case may be, any information
required by him for the purpose of furnishing the return
referred to in sub-section (1) or for furnishing the
information required under sub-section(2).
(4) If any foreigner enters India in
contravention of any provision of this Act or any order
made thereunder, the prescribed authority may, within
two months from the date of such entry, direct the
master of the Vessel or the pilot of the aircraft on which
such entry was effected or the owner or the agent of the
owner of such Vessel or aircraft, to provide, to the
satisfaction of the said authourity and otherwise than at
the expense of Government, accommodation on a
Vessel or aircraft for the purpose of removing the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
foreigner from India.
(5) The master of any Vessel or the pilot of any
aircraft which is about to carry passengers from a port
or place in India to any destination outside India, or the
owner or the agent of the owner of any such Vessel or
aircraft shall, if so directed by the Central Government
and on tender of payment therefore at the current rates,
provide on the Vessel or aircraft accommodation to such
port or place outside India, being a port or place at
which the Vessel or aircraft is due to call, as the Central
Government may specify, for any foreigner ordered
under section 3 not to remain in India and for his
dependents, if any, travelling with him.
(6) For the purposes of this section —
(a) “master of a Vessel” and “pilot of any
aircraft”, shall include any person authorised by such
master or pilot, as the case may be, to discharge on his
behalf any of the duties imposed on him by this section;
(b) “passenger” means any person not being a
bona fide member of the crew, travelling or seeking to
travel on a Vessel or aircraft."
11. Para 6 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"6. Liability of master of Vessel etc. to remove a
foreigner:
(1) A civil authority may require the master of
the Vessel or pilot of the aircraft in which a foreigner has
arrived or the owners or agents of that Vessel or
aircraft, as may be appropriate in the opinion of such
civil authority, to remove a foreigner who has been
refused permission to enter or who has entered India
without its permission or who has been landed in
contravention of Sub-para (3) and the master, pilot,
owner or agent, as the case may be shall comply with
such requisition unless it is received more tha n two
months after the date of the arrival of the foreigner in
India.
(2) The master of a Vessel or the pilot of an
aircraft scheduled to call at any port outside India, shall,
if so required by the Central Government, receive a
foreigner in respect of whom an order directing that he
shall not remain in India has been made, and his
dependents, if any, on board the Vessel or aircraft, as
the case may be, and afford him and them a passage to
that port and proper accommodation and maintenance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
during the passage.
(3) The master of any Vessel or the pilot of any
aircraft shall not, without the permission of the civil
authority, land at any port in India any person travelling
by that Vessel or aircraft against the wishes of such
person unless such person has been required by the
Central Government to be brought to India.
(4) Nothing contained in the Foreigners
(Exemption) Order, 1957 shall preclude the operation
and application of the provision of sub-paragraph (3)."
12. The term "Seaman" has the meaning assigned to it in the
Registratin of Foreigners Rules, 1939. "Seaman" means a person
employed on, or engaged in the working of a Vessel.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Seaman. He has left the
Vessel without obtaining permission and and landed into the Indian
Shores in contravention of the provisions of Foreigners Act and thereby
the respondents have registered a case for offence punishable under
Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004.
14. Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004
reads as under:-
14A. Penalty for entry in restricted areas, etc.-
Whoever-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(b) enters into or stays in any area in India without
the valid documents required for such entry or for
such stay, as the case may be, under the provisions
of any order made under this Act or any direction
given in pursuance thereof, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
two years, but may extend to eight years and shall
also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten
thousand rupees but may extend to fifty thousand
rupees; and if he has entered into a bond in
pursuance of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section
3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound
thereby shall pay the penalty thereof, or show cause
to the satisfaction of the convicting Court why such
penalty should not be paid by him.
15. As per Section 6(4) of the Act and Para 6(1) of the
Foreigners Order, 1948 if any foreigner enters India in contravention of
any provision of this Act or any order made thereunder, the prescribed
authority may, within two months from the date of such entry, direct the
Master of the Vessel or the Pilot of the Aircraft on which such entry was
effected or the owner or the Agent of the owner of such Vessel or Aircraft,
to provide, to the satisfaction of the said authourity and otherwise than at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the expense of Government, accommodation on a Vessel or Aircraft for
the purpose of removing the said foreigner from India.
16. The petitioner being a Seaman had come on a voyage in a
Vessel and he had contravened the provisios of this Act, a request had
already been made within the prescribed period by the petitioner as well
as the Master of the Vessel. It is the admitted case of respondents 2 and
3 that such a request has been received, however, no action has been
taken by the respondents to deport him whereas a final report has been
filed and the case now stands posted for trial.
17. It is useful to refer the relevant paragraph of the judgment
in Md Kameual Islam and others Vs State represented by the
Inspector of Police, Dindigul and others (2020) SCC OnLine Mad
1171), which is extracted hereunder:
17. I feel sensitive to the petitioners' misery
particularly these pandemic times. I posed a question to
myself if I am acting beyond jurisdiction? The Hon'ble Chief
Justice has allotted the subject of Criminal Original
Petition-Bail, Anticipatory Bail Petitions, Criminal Appeal
and Criminal Revision Petitions to be dealt with by me. But,
in view of my being a Judge of the High Court, I certainly
have the inherent power to make such orders as may be
necessary to secure the ends of justice. The Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision
reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578 (P.Ramachandra Rao v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
State of Karnataka) had held as follows:
"...In appropriate cases, the High Courts
have exercise their jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashing of first information report
and investigation, and terminating criminal
proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law
was clearly made out. Such power can certainly be
exercised on a case being made out of breach of
fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Constitution Bench in A.R.
Antulay's case referred to such power, vesting in
the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its
judgment) and held that it was clear that even
apart from Article 21, the Courts can take care of
undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or
proceedings if they remain pending for too long and
putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to
further proceedings when they are found to be
oppressive and unwarranted."
18. To quote Baxi, at the heart of every
constitution there pulsates a distinction between 'us' and
'them', the constitutional self and the constitutional others.
But there are provisions transcending this distinction, being
applicable to "all persons". Article 21 of the Constitution
surely applies to the petitioners also. Failure to respond to
the petitioners' existential horror would amount to judicial
abdication. If I come to the conclusion that the petitioners
have already suffered enough and that they are being put
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to "surplus or unnecessary suffering", I am obliged to
intervene.
19. I assume that the petitioners have committed
the offences in question. That need not deter me from
granting relief. A learned Judge of the Bombay High Court
in 2006 CRL. L.J. 618 (Usha Badri Poonawalla v .
Kurien Babu) held that the power under Section 482 of
Cr.PC is available even in those cases where there is prima
facie material available to show that the offence has been
made out. It is not that the inherent powers of the High
Court are to be invoked only when the offence is not made
out . Even when the offence is made out , if the
continuance of the prosecution would amount to an abuse
of process, this inherent power can be tapped.
20. I now turn to Article 12 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is as follows :
“1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State
shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty
of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country,
including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject
to any restrictions except those which are provided
by law, are necessary to protect national security,
public order (order public), public health or morals
order (order public), public health or morals or the
rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with the other rights recognized in the present
Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to
enter his own country."
India is a signatory to this covenant. It has also ratified it.
This Convention has been relied on in quite a few decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Navtej Singh Johar vs.
Union of India , (2018 ) 10 SCC 1, it was observed as
follows:
“523. International law today has evolved towards
establishing that the criminalization of consensual
sexual acts between same-sex adults in private
contravenes the rights to equality, privacy, and
freedom from discrimination. These rights are
recognised in international treaties, covenants, and
agreements which India has ratified, including the
UDHR, ICCPR, and the ICESCR. India has a
constitutional duty to honour these internationally
recognized Rules and principles. Article 51 of the
Constitution, which forms part of the Directive
Principles of State Policy, requires the State to
endeavour to " foster respect for international law
and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised
peoples with one another.”
Of course, the petitioners having violated the visa
conditions cannot demand that they must be allowed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
return as a matter of right. But then, the authorities cannot
arbitrarily deny the said request.
Since the petitioners have already been in prison for
seventy days, there is a requirement to undertake a
proportionality review. I am of the view that the prison
term already undergone by them should be considered as
sufficient punishment. When the petitioners have already
paid the price for their misadventure, to insist that they
should continue to remain in India in prison-like conditions
till the proceedings are concluded grossly offends the
principle of proportionality and fairness.
21. During times of armed conflict or emergency,
the right to leave any country can be invoked. The current
pandemic times are no different. The petitioners
fortunately have not tested positive so far. The position
may be different tomorrow. The lives of the petitioners
may be in danger. Times may be uncertain but rights have
to be certain. The petitioners are willing to bear the cost of
transportation. They will coordinate with their embassies
and consulates and arrange their return. All that the
respondents need to do is to play a facilitatory role.
Instead of doing so, if the respondents insist on detaining
the petitioners and prosecuting them, it can only be
charecterized as unreasonable, unjust and unfair. I,
therefore, hold that the continuance of the criminal
prosecution against the petitioners herein would certainly
amount to an infraction of their fundamental right under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and directing their
closure on appropriate terms alone would secure the ends
of justice. Since the petitioners have already suffered
enough for their transgression of law and there is
prevalence of medical emergency, the petitioners are
having the right to return to their native countries at the
earliest opportunity.”
18. Technically, it may seem that the petitioner had violated the
provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Order, 1948,
however, taking into consdiration the facts of the case, it was a life and
death situation for the petitioner and in such circumstances, without
understanding the legal consequences, the petitioner, in the earnest
desire to save his life, has reached the nearby hospital where he had
taken treatement and immediately after the treatement, he had retunred
back to the Vessel. It is not a case of sneaking illegally and the petitioner
had passed through the Security gates and there is no
hidden/concealed/covered or veiled conduct in reaching the hospital. The
petitioner was allowed to go thorugh the main gate by the authorities and
when he was returning back, he had been detained by the very same
authorities. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the petitioner cannot
be termed as a criminal and this court court is of the further opinion that
the continuation of the prosecution would only amount to abuse of
process of law.
19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
taking into consideration the case of the petitioner in a sympathetic
manner, this Court is of the opinion that though there is a prima facie
material available to show that the offence has been made out as against
the petitioner, the further proceedings in P.R.C.No.18 of 2021 pending
committal on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-II at Ponneri
can be quashed invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
20. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that no other cases are pending against the petitioner and also the
passport of the petitioner is in the custody of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Ponneri. Hence, he would pray that a direction may be
issued to learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri to return the passport
of the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to leave or get deported
from India at the earliest.
21. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the present
case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the further
proceedings in P.R.C.No.18 of 2021 pending committal on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate Court-II at Ponneri is quashed and the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri is directed to return the passport of the
petitioner to the 1st respondent, who, inturn, shall hand over the same to
the petitioner, who is now lodged in the Special Camp for Foreigners at
Trichy. Further, the respondents are directed to take expeditious steps to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deport the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
22. The Criminal Original Petition stands ordered accordingly.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.04.2022
rgi/nr/ssk.
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Note to office:-
Issue copy by 6.5.2022
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Minjur Police Station,
Minjur, Tiruvallur District.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Union of India, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Immigration Officer,
Foreigners Regional Registration Office,
Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and
Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
No.26, Shastri Bhawan, Annexe Building,
26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J
rgi/nr/ssk.
Crl.O.P.No.25550 of 2021 &
Crl.M.P.No.14126 of 2021
26.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
