Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

C.Muthusanjeevi vs The State
2024 Latest Caselaw 18509 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 18509 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2024

Madras High Court

C.Muthusanjeevi vs The State on 19 September, 2024

Author: N.Seshasayee

Bench: N.Seshasayee

                                                                                     Crl.A.No.806 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 19.09.2024

                                         CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                                   Crl.A.No.806 of 2024


                     C.Muthusanjeevi                                      ... Petitioner / A-14

                                                          Vs.


                     The State, Rep by its
                     Inspector of Police
                     SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai
                     in RC 23(A)/2007                                     ... Respondent /
                     Respondent

                     Prayer : Civil Appeal filed under Section 454 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside
                     the order in C.M.P.No.58 of 2024 in C.C.No.12 of 2010 dated 20.05.2024
                     passed by the II Additional District Judge (CBI cases), Coimbatore.

                                   For Appellant      :     Mr.K.Mohanamurali

                                   For Respondent     :     Mr.K.Srinivasan
                                                            Special Public Prosecutor [CBI]


                                                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging an order passed by the II Additional District

Court (Special Court for CBI cases), Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.58 of 2024 in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.C.No.12 of 2010.

2. The appellant herein is arrayed as A14 in the said case, and he had moved

the trial Court for return of the passport. The trial Court allowed the petition,

but with a qualification that the passport shall be returned only for one month

for the purpose of its renewal and once it is done, it is directed to be

reproduced before the Court.

3. To a query from the Court to the learned Prosecutor as to why the Court

requires the passport of A14, the learned Prosecutor submitted to the extent

that he has instructions in the matter, the passport was submitted to the Court

as a part of the bail condition imposed on him.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during investigation,

the Investigating Officer has seized the passport and left it in the custody of

the trial Court. He further argued that Court may not impound the passport

and if at all the investigating agency requires that the passport be impounded,

it ought to move under Section 10 of the Passport Act. Inasmuch as the

Court cannot impound the passport, it may have to be returned to the

passport holder. He also submitted that the petitioner is yet to obtain return https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of the passport even for renewal, as he had preferred this appeal and since the

trial Court has restricted the return to a bare one month.

5. In response, the learned Prosecutor submitted that there are two parts to

the case of the petitioner: the first part disclosed and the second part

undisclosed. So far as the first part is concerned, as per the instructions he

had received, he was not able to ascertain the circumstances under which the

passport had reached the Court. He also submitted that the Ministry of

External Affairs in Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, had carved

out an exception to Section 62(f) of the Passport Act, and enabled issuance of

passport to Indian citizens who face trial for criminal cases in India, for such

period, the Court before which the case is pending, may permit. The second

part which is more critical is travelling abroad with the aid of the passport.

This is something which the trial Court alone can consider depending on the

facts of the case and the stage of trial etc.,

6. This Court finds there is merit on both sides. Accordingly, this Court

requires the trial Court to ascertain whether passport of the petitioner herein

has been seized by the investigating agency and left it in its custody. If the

passport is not required for investigation or if the investigating agency does https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

not requires it to be impounded, then it is only appropriate for the Court

concerned to release the passport. So far as any travel abroad by the

petitioner is concerned, he has to apply to the trial Court seeking leave of the

trial Court for travelling abroad, and such travel would be subject to such

conditions which the Court granting leave may impose on him.

7. The criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.

19.09.2024

ds

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order

To:

1.The II Additional District Judge (CBI cases) Coimbatore.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.SESHASAYEE.J.,

ds

19.09.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter