Disposed

Mohammadali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2014Crl.MC/906/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused to quash the magistrate order retaining a disputed passport. Relying on an expert opinion detecting manipulation, the court directed the petitioner to seek a limited return of the passport solely for endorsing an extended visa before applying for a temporary travel document.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Petitioner directed to file application for limited passport return for visa endorsement; magistrate directed to consider it urgently.

Mohammadali Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/21ST PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 906 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 538/2013 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER / ACCUSED :

¶8

MOHAMMADALI, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.HAMZA, VALAKKALCHERRY HOUSE, VAZHIKADAVU KAMBALLAMALLU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAMSUDIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.- 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 906 of 2014 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶19

ANNEXURE-A1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2013 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI IN CRL.MP NO.5805/2013. ANNEXURE-A2. TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-A3. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-A4. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

¶25

============================== Crl.M.C.No.906 of 2014

¶26

============================== Dated this, the 12^th day of March, 2014.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This application has been filed by the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.538/13 of Karipur Police Station of Malappuram District, challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.5805/13 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶29

It is alleged in the petition that he is the accused in Crime No.538/13 of Karipur Police Station which is registered against him alleging offences under Sections. 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act. The allegation of the prosecution was that, on 18.09.2013, at 3.00 p.m., the petitioner came from Riyadh and landed in Calicut Airport with a forged passport and the allegation was that, the passport was obtained by altering the date of birth for the purpose of cheating and used the same as genuine for travelling from Riyadh to Calicut Airport. He was arrested and produced before court and remanded and later released on bail. He filed the Crl.M.P.No.5808/13 before the Judicial First

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.906 of 2014 : 2 :

¶31

Class Magistrate Court for release of his passport since the period of visa will expire 18.02.2014. The court below allowed the petitioner to go abroad for a period of one year, but, disallowed his prayer for releasing the passport. The court below has directed the petitioner to apply for a temporary passport. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

¶32

“ To direct the court below to release the passport No.E.9153917 belonging to the petitioner taken into custody in crime.No.538/13 of Karipur Police Station and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri or in the alternative direct the Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode to issue a temporary passport or travel document to the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court, in the interest of justice.”

¶33

Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no tampering or any forgery committed by the petitioner and it is a genuine passport, further, his visa period has been extended till today and unless he gets the passport back, he will not be able to renew the visa.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the passport has been tampered and so, it

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.906 of 2014 : 3 :

¶37

cannot be given.

¶38

The fact that the petitioner was arrested when he came from Riyadh to Calicut and a case was registered and his passport was seized etc., are not in dispute. The petitioner filed an application for return of the passport and that was disposed of by the learned magistrate by Annexure A1 order in which, the learned magistrate has rejected the prayer for return of the passport, but, permitted the petitioner to go abroad and also apply to the passport authorities for issue of a temporary passport. The reasons stated was that, since it is a forged passport and without getting a report from the experts regarding this aspect, this cannot be returned at that stage. Now, the passport has been sent for expert opinion and it is seen from the expert opinion that there is some manipulation detected in the disputed passport. So, under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the magistrate in not returning the passport at that stage is illegal. I don't find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below in this regard. The submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner that, the present passport will be required for endorsing the visa in the temporary passport for

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.906 of 2014 : 4 :

¶40

which the passport will have to be returned to the petitioner and he will return the passport without making any change in the passport, etc., has to be considered by the magistrate. So, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri for return of the passport for a limited purpose of endorsing the visa in the temporary passport for which the original passport is required and if such an application is filed, learned magistrate is directed to consider that application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as far as possible on the date on which the application is filed considering the urgency in the matter.

¶41

With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of. Issue copy of the order to the Counsel for the petitioner immediately.

¶42

Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.

¶43

¶44

[True copy]

¶45

P.A to Judge

Mohammadali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammadali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallikunnu Jishi Vs the State of Kerala

Gireesh Kumar T. Vs State of Kerala

Eashy v J @ Dasan Vs State of Kerala

Santhamma Abraham Vs P.P.Singh

Syamala Vs State of Kerala

Faisal Vs State of Kerala