Sections 420, 385 read with 120-B of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 to 6 read with Section 2(c) of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. for relaxation of conditions - Sec.6 and 22 of Pass port Act - Guidelines issued under the Act - While granting bail , the sessions court directed to deposit the passport with the DSP the erst while I.O. - case is transferred to CBI court - application for relaxation of bail conditions - returned due to lack of jurisdiction - their lordships held that the sessions court rightly order to deposit the pass port to the DSP - Erst while I.O.- Now the case is entursted to Hyd. CBI - the petition is partly allowed and directed the DSP to surrender the pass port to the concerned court or before DGP of CBI so as enable the petitioner to take permission of the Hon'ble court to travel in country or out side country when ever necessity occurs = CRIMINAL PETITION No.7756 OF 2014 15-07-2014 William Scott Pinckney ..PETITIONER State of A.P., rep. by Kurnool II Town Police Station, Kurnool District, through Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another. ..RESPONDENTS = 2014 - July- Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11669
Sections 420, 385 read with 120-B of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 to 6 read with Section 2(c)
of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. for relaxation of conditions - Sec.6 and 22 of Pass port Act - Guidelines issued under the Act - While granting bail , the sessions court directed to deposit the passport with the DSP the erst while I.O. - case is transferred to CBI court - application for relaxation of bail conditions - returned due to lack of jurisdiction - their lordships held that the sessions court rightly order to deposit the pass port to the DSP - Erst while I.O.- Now the case is entursted to Hyd. CBI - the petition is partly allowed and directed the DSP to surrender the pass port to the concerned court or before DGP of CBI so as enable the petitioner to take permission of the Hon'ble court to travel in country or out side country when ever necessity occurs =
The petitioner was enlarged on
regular bail by order dated 12.6.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014.
Crime is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 385
read with 120-B of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 to 6 read with Section 2(c)
of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. =
It is after the said order the petitioner-accused moved the Sessions
Court under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1329 of 2014 for
relaxation of the conditions regarding surrender and attending before the
Investigation Officer.=
No doubt, thereby the
impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge in directing to surrender
the passport is no way statutorily illegal much less as per the settled
propositions of the Apex Court supra.=
In fact as per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act,
there is a
provision that where the person is accused of crime in India passport can
be refused or a travel permit even can be refused.
After the said
provision noticed as causing difficulty for several of the persons from the
accusation facing, guidelines issued.
Needless to say, so far as public
servants in discharge of their official duties is concerned,
if crime is
pending against them, the superior officers can permit to leave the
country and from the no objection and certification of the superiors,
passport authority can issue passport or to give travel permit vide G.S.R.
34 (E), dated 12.01.2000.
So far as the other persons are concerned,
the Ministry of External
Affairs in GSR 570E, dated 25.8.1993 as per Section 22 of the Passports
Act observed that in the public interest by virtue of this notification
exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed pending before the Criminal
Court in India, who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting
them to depart from India from the operation of the provisions of Section
6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, the passport can be permitted or travel
permit as the case may be.
Having regard to the above, even for the petitioner-accused
since
criminal case pending more than one and half year, undisputably
entrusted to CID for investigation under an umbrella of the concerned
Officer, concerned Court permission is required for his leaving country.
Having regard to the above, surrender of the passport rather than
keeping in with the erstwhile investigation officer i.e., Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, better to direct to deposit with the
concerned Court or CID superior official. So that whenever any
permission to leave the country applied in that court and can ask for
permission to take passport and surrender back. Accordingly, Point No.1
is answered.
In the result, this Application is partly allowed relaxing the
condition to appear before the Investigation Officer on the respective
dates, to attend whenever the CID police called for the purpose of
investigation subject to availability in India (leave in case where
permitted to leave country by return of passport), must appear before the
investigation officer of the CID concerned every month on first Saturday
till the end of trial.
So far as deposit of passport with DSP, Kurnool, is concerned, the
same is changed to deposit with Additional Director General of Police,
CID, Hyderabad.
It is needless to say this order will not come in the way of
exercising of any powers by the authorities concerned under the
Passports Act.
2014 - July- Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11669
HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7756 OF 2014
15-07-2014
William Scott Pinckney ..PETITIONER
State of A.P., rep. by Kurnool II Town Police Station, Kurnool District,
through Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another. ..RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. NIRANJAN Reddy
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?CITATIONS:
1. (1999) 5 SCC 694
2. (2008) 3 SCC 674 = AIR 2008 SC 1414
3. (1980) 2 SCC 565
4. AIR 2011 SC 312
THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7756 OF 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.311 of 2013 of
Kurnool II-town P.S.
The petitioner was granted regular bail by order of the learned
Sessions Judge under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014
in Crime No.311 of Kurnool II Town P.S. The petitioner was enlarged on
regular bail by order dated 12.6.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014.
Crime is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 385
read with 120-B of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 to 6 read with Section 2(c)
of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
Needless to say against the petitioner-accused, there are more than
10 crimes pending within two States and the investigation by virtue of
direction of this Court in W.P. No.15493 of 2014, dated 10.6.2014 is
entrusted to Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad.
Coming back to the bail order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated
12.6.2014 at paragraph-10 conditions imposed include execution of self-
bold for Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool, appearing before the Investigating
Officer i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police, RO, CID, Kurnool named
therein every second Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon until
further orders and to surrender his two original passports of United
States of America and Australia respectively, before the investigation
officers supra within two weeks of the said order granting bail subject to
acknowledgement and not to make any inducement or threat to the
witnesses acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court.
It is after the said order the petitioner-accused moved the Sessions
Court under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1329 of 2014 for
relaxation of the conditions regarding surrender and attending before the
Investigation Officer.
The learned Sessions Judge returned the application by doubting
jurisdiction of him to entertain the application being self-same court that
has granted bail earlier and ultimately ended in dismissal by order dated
3.7.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.1329 of 2014 with an observation that what the
learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contended in several of the
crimes pending against the petitioner-accused among others there was
no condition of impounding passport is not correct. No doubt, in one of
the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad in Crime No.123 of 2014 of CCS, Hyderabad, condition is
relaxed by order dated 20.6.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.2257 of 2014.
The contention of the petitioner-accused is that the impounding of
passport with the police officer is not justified. For that, he placed
reliance on two propositions; one GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN and the other is SURESH NANDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION . In fact, the first judgment in GIAN SINGH
(1 supra) the Apex Court held that when the petitioner-accused is citizen
of foreign country and he has to travel directly to another country even
the impounding of passport is no way justified.
It was not laid down as the principle but for the same to be taken
as principle from the argument of the learned counsel.
In fact, scope of Section 6 much less Section 10 or 10A or 10B of
the Passports Act, 1967 not referred therein.
Coming to the other decision in SURESH NANDA'S case (2 supra)
what was laid down by the Apex Court is even a CBI official securing and
retaining passport with him is nothing but confiscation without sanction
of law much less by any statutory provision and the same was illegal.
That proposition has no application to the present facts more
particularly, it is an order of the learned Sessions Judge. In fact, the
Apex Court in the Constitutional Bench Judgment in GURUBAKSH
SINGH SIBBIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB and referring said expression by
the Apex Court later in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA , it was vividly explained what are the conditions to
be laid down in granting bail which include impounding of passport by
order of the Court and furnishing of the property particulars, seizure of
title deeds, seizure of bank account. Needless to say attending the police
station and there are nine guidelines laid down by the Constitutional
Bench of the Apex Court in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRES case
(4 supra) which include guideline as to given police custody where
anticipatory bail is sought.
These are only illustrative and not exhaustive that are required to
be applied depending on the facts of the case. No doubt, thereby the
impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge in directing to surrender
the passport is no way statutorily illegal much less as per the settled
propositions of the Apex Court supra.
In fact as per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, there is a
provision that where the person is accused of crime in India passport can
be refused or a travel permit even can be refused. After the said
provision noticed as causing difficulty for several of the persons from the
accusation facing, guidelines issued. Needless to say, so far as public
servants in discharge of their official duties is concerned, if crime is
pending against them, the superior officers can permit to leave the
country and from the no objection and certification of the superiors,
passport authority can issue passport or to give travel permit vide G.S.R.
34 (E), dated 12.01.2000.
So far as the other persons are concerned, the Ministry of External
Affairs in GSR 570E, dated 25.8.1993 as per Section 22 of the Passports
Act observed that in the public interest by virtue of this notification
exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed pending before the Criminal
Court in India, who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting
them to depart from India from the operation of the provisions of Section
6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, the passport can be permitted or travel
permit as the case may be.
Having regard to the above, even for the petitioner-accused since
criminal case pending more than one and half year, undisputably
entrusted to CID for investigation under an umbrella of the concerned
Officer, concerned Court permission is required for his leaving country.
Having regard to the above, surrender of the passport rather than
keeping in with the erstwhile investigation officer i.e., Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, better to direct to deposit with the
concerned Court or CID superior official. So that whenever any
permission to leave the country applied in that court and can ask for
permission to take passport and surrender back. Accordingly, Point No.1
is answered.
In the result, this Application is partly allowed relaxing the
condition to appear before the Investigation Officer on the respective
dates, to attend whenever the CID police called for the purpose of
investigation subject to availability in India (leave in case where
permitted to leave country by return of passport), must appear before the
investigation officer of the CID concerned every month on first Saturday
till the end of trial.
So far as deposit of passport with DSP, Kurnool, is concerned, the
same is changed to deposit with Additional Director General of Police,
CID, Hyderabad.
It is needless to say this order will not come in the way of
exercising of any powers by the authorities concerned under the
Passports Act.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J
Dt.15.07.2014
of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. for relaxation of conditions - Sec.6 and 22 of Pass port Act - Guidelines issued under the Act - While granting bail , the sessions court directed to deposit the passport with the DSP the erst while I.O. - case is transferred to CBI court - application for relaxation of bail conditions - returned due to lack of jurisdiction - their lordships held that the sessions court rightly order to deposit the pass port to the DSP - Erst while I.O.- Now the case is entursted to Hyd. CBI - the petition is partly allowed and directed the DSP to surrender the pass port to the concerned court or before DGP of CBI so as enable the petitioner to take permission of the Hon'ble court to travel in country or out side country when ever necessity occurs =
The petitioner was enlarged on
regular bail by order dated 12.6.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014.
Crime is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 385
read with 120-B of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 to 6 read with Section 2(c)
of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. =
It is after the said order the petitioner-accused moved the Sessions
Court under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1329 of 2014 for
relaxation of the conditions regarding surrender and attending before the
Investigation Officer.=
No doubt, thereby the
impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge in directing to surrender
the passport is no way statutorily illegal much less as per the settled
propositions of the Apex Court supra.=
In fact as per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act,
there is a
provision that where the person is accused of crime in India passport can
be refused or a travel permit even can be refused.
After the said
provision noticed as causing difficulty for several of the persons from the
accusation facing, guidelines issued.
Needless to say, so far as public
servants in discharge of their official duties is concerned,
if crime is
pending against them, the superior officers can permit to leave the
country and from the no objection and certification of the superiors,
passport authority can issue passport or to give travel permit vide G.S.R.
34 (E), dated 12.01.2000.
So far as the other persons are concerned,
the Ministry of External
Affairs in GSR 570E, dated 25.8.1993 as per Section 22 of the Passports
Act observed that in the public interest by virtue of this notification
exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed pending before the Criminal
Court in India, who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting
them to depart from India from the operation of the provisions of Section
6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, the passport can be permitted or travel
permit as the case may be.
Having regard to the above, even for the petitioner-accused
since
criminal case pending more than one and half year, undisputably
entrusted to CID for investigation under an umbrella of the concerned
Officer, concerned Court permission is required for his leaving country.
Having regard to the above, surrender of the passport rather than
keeping in with the erstwhile investigation officer i.e., Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, better to direct to deposit with the
concerned Court or CID superior official. So that whenever any
permission to leave the country applied in that court and can ask for
permission to take passport and surrender back. Accordingly, Point No.1
is answered.
In the result, this Application is partly allowed relaxing the
condition to appear before the Investigation Officer on the respective
dates, to attend whenever the CID police called for the purpose of
investigation subject to availability in India (leave in case where
permitted to leave country by return of passport), must appear before the
investigation officer of the CID concerned every month on first Saturday
till the end of trial.
So far as deposit of passport with DSP, Kurnool, is concerned, the
same is changed to deposit with Additional Director General of Police,
CID, Hyderabad.
It is needless to say this order will not come in the way of
exercising of any powers by the authorities concerned under the
Passports Act.
2014 - July- Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11669
HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7756 OF 2014
15-07-2014
William Scott Pinckney ..PETITIONER
State of A.P., rep. by Kurnool II Town Police Station, Kurnool District,
through Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another. ..RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. NIRANJAN Reddy
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?CITATIONS:
1. (1999) 5 SCC 694
2. (2008) 3 SCC 674 = AIR 2008 SC 1414
3. (1980) 2 SCC 565
4. AIR 2011 SC 312
THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7756 OF 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.311 of 2013 of
Kurnool II-town P.S.
The petitioner was granted regular bail by order of the learned
Sessions Judge under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014
in Crime No.311 of Kurnool II Town P.S. The petitioner was enlarged on
regular bail by order dated 12.6.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.1043 of 2014.
Crime is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 385
read with 120-B of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 to 6 read with Section 2(c)
of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
Needless to say against the petitioner-accused, there are more than
10 crimes pending within two States and the investigation by virtue of
direction of this Court in W.P. No.15493 of 2014, dated 10.6.2014 is
entrusted to Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad.
Coming back to the bail order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated
12.6.2014 at paragraph-10 conditions imposed include execution of self-
bold for Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool, appearing before the Investigating
Officer i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police, RO, CID, Kurnool named
therein every second Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon until
further orders and to surrender his two original passports of United
States of America and Australia respectively, before the investigation
officers supra within two weeks of the said order granting bail subject to
acknowledgement and not to make any inducement or threat to the
witnesses acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court.
It is after the said order the petitioner-accused moved the Sessions
Court under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.1329 of 2014 for
relaxation of the conditions regarding surrender and attending before the
Investigation Officer.
The learned Sessions Judge returned the application by doubting
jurisdiction of him to entertain the application being self-same court that
has granted bail earlier and ultimately ended in dismissal by order dated
3.7.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.1329 of 2014 with an observation that what the
learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contended in several of the
crimes pending against the petitioner-accused among others there was
no condition of impounding passport is not correct. No doubt, in one of
the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad in Crime No.123 of 2014 of CCS, Hyderabad, condition is
relaxed by order dated 20.6.2014 in Crl.M.P. No.2257 of 2014.
The contention of the petitioner-accused is that the impounding of
passport with the police officer is not justified. For that, he placed
reliance on two propositions; one GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN and the other is SURESH NANDA v. CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION . In fact, the first judgment in GIAN SINGH
(1 supra) the Apex Court held that when the petitioner-accused is citizen
of foreign country and he has to travel directly to another country even
the impounding of passport is no way justified.
It was not laid down as the principle but for the same to be taken
as principle from the argument of the learned counsel.
In fact, scope of Section 6 much less Section 10 or 10A or 10B of
the Passports Act, 1967 not referred therein.
Coming to the other decision in SURESH NANDA'S case (2 supra)
what was laid down by the Apex Court is even a CBI official securing and
retaining passport with him is nothing but confiscation without sanction
of law much less by any statutory provision and the same was illegal.
That proposition has no application to the present facts more
particularly, it is an order of the learned Sessions Judge. In fact, the
Apex Court in the Constitutional Bench Judgment in GURUBAKSH
SINGH SIBBIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB and referring said expression by
the Apex Court later in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA , it was vividly explained what are the conditions to
be laid down in granting bail which include impounding of passport by
order of the Court and furnishing of the property particulars, seizure of
title deeds, seizure of bank account. Needless to say attending the police
station and there are nine guidelines laid down by the Constitutional
Bench of the Apex Court in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRES case
(4 supra) which include guideline as to given police custody where
anticipatory bail is sought.
These are only illustrative and not exhaustive that are required to
be applied depending on the facts of the case. No doubt, thereby the
impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge in directing to surrender
the passport is no way statutorily illegal much less as per the settled
propositions of the Apex Court supra.
In fact as per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, there is a
provision that where the person is accused of crime in India passport can
be refused or a travel permit even can be refused. After the said
provision noticed as causing difficulty for several of the persons from the
accusation facing, guidelines issued. Needless to say, so far as public
servants in discharge of their official duties is concerned, if crime is
pending against them, the superior officers can permit to leave the
country and from the no objection and certification of the superiors,
passport authority can issue passport or to give travel permit vide G.S.R.
34 (E), dated 12.01.2000.
So far as the other persons are concerned, the Ministry of External
Affairs in GSR 570E, dated 25.8.1993 as per Section 22 of the Passports
Act observed that in the public interest by virtue of this notification
exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed pending before the Criminal
Court in India, who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting
them to depart from India from the operation of the provisions of Section
6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, the passport can be permitted or travel
permit as the case may be.
Having regard to the above, even for the petitioner-accused since
criminal case pending more than one and half year, undisputably
entrusted to CID for investigation under an umbrella of the concerned
Officer, concerned Court permission is required for his leaving country.
Having regard to the above, surrender of the passport rather than
keeping in with the erstwhile investigation officer i.e., Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, better to direct to deposit with the
concerned Court or CID superior official. So that whenever any
permission to leave the country applied in that court and can ask for
permission to take passport and surrender back. Accordingly, Point No.1
is answered.
In the result, this Application is partly allowed relaxing the
condition to appear before the Investigation Officer on the respective
dates, to attend whenever the CID police called for the purpose of
investigation subject to availability in India (leave in case where
permitted to leave country by return of passport), must appear before the
investigation officer of the CID concerned every month on first Saturday
till the end of trial.
So far as deposit of passport with DSP, Kurnool, is concerned, the
same is changed to deposit with Additional Director General of Police,
CID, Hyderabad.
It is needless to say this order will not come in the way of
exercising of any powers by the authorities concerned under the
Passports Act.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J
Dt.15.07.2014
Comments
Post a Comment