High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-06-25W.P. (C) No. 19128 of 2010 disposed of; travel ...

Suneesh Vellacheri v. Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 19128 of 2010 (Q)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Ramkumar
Judgment Date: 2010-06-25
Court Decision / Holding: Petition disposed of. The Court grants travel permission to go abroad for two years, directs the passport to be returned on condition of executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, and requires the petitioner to furnish local and overseas addresses and counsel details. The Sessions Judge is directed to consider the personal exemption under Sec. 638/09 within two weeks if identity is not an issue, and to proceed according to law regarding charge framing within one month.
Final Disposition: W.P. (C) No. 19128 of 2010 disposed of; travel permission granted; passport to be returned with bond and conditions; matter to be decided by the trial court within the specified timelines.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suneesh Vellacheri

Respondents

Union of India
Passport Officer, Kozhikode
Port Registration Officer, Immigration Wing, Calicut Airport
Sub Inspector of Police, Office of the Port Registration Officer, Immigration Wing, Calicut Airport

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Kaleeswaram Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Jebi Mather Hisham

Case Synopsis & Summary

Suneesh Vellacheri, the petitioner in WP(C) No.19128/2010, is accused in Crime No.248/2006 of Payyannur Police Station for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149. He seeks to quash Ext.P3, a notice issued by the Passport Officer calling for surrender of Passport No.F.3553649 (dated 6-6-2005) under Sec.13(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, and Ext.P7 seizure form, which led to his passport being impounded on 15-5-2010. Ext.P3 was issued following information to the Passport Officer that the petitioner’s case is pending in the Magistrate’s court (C.P.159/2006; originally SC 235/2007). The Court does not consider the validity of Ext.P3 necessary to adjudicate at this stage. The petitioner, who works in Abu Dhabi, contends potential misclassification of the offence (alleged under Sec.37(i)(vii) of the Standards of Weight and Measures Act, 1985) as opposed to Sec.38, and requests a determination on timing for framing of charges. The Court notes the matter was allowed to be argued and provides that, if identity is not an issue, the petitioner may seek personal exemption under Sec.638/09 within two weeks, and directs the Magistrate to decide whether a charge should be framed within one month, while granting travel permission subject to conditions. In light of a notification and a cited authority, the Court ultimately allows the petitioner to travel abroad for two years, returning the passport with bond and conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Passports Act, 1967 - Sec. 13(3)(e)Indian Penal Code - Sec. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Sec. 149Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 - Sec. 37(i)(vii) and Sec. 38G.S.R.570(E) notification dated 25-08-1993

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P3 and Ext.P7 cannot stand; he seeks quashing of the notice and seizure on the ground of improper invocation of the Passports Act and related proceedings. He also argues about potential misclassification of the offence (claims it may be under Sec. 38 of the Standards of Weight and Measures Act, 1985 rather than Sec. 37(i)(vii)), and urges the Court to permit travel abroad pending trial while ensuring identity is not unduly impeded. The petitioner also contends for a personal exemption under Sec. 638/09 if identity is not an issue, with the two-year travel period.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on lawful exercise of passport control under Sec. 13(3)(e) of the Passports Act and the seizure of the passport; they emphasize the ongoing criminal proceedings and the necessity of maintaining passport controls to ensure presence in court, defending the notice and seizure as lawful under the statute. They do not oppose a reasoned inquiry into the correct charge framing but focus on ensuring compliance with legal procedures and the statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Asok Kumar S.K. v. State of Kerala	2009 (2) KLT 712	Positive	Cited to justify grant of permission to travel abroad under a corrective legal framework and G.S.R.570(E) notification in similar context.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Suneesh Vellacheri v. Union of India and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19128 of 2010(Q) ----------------------PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNEESH VELLACHERI, S/O.M.KUNHAPPAN, KUNIYAN, KRIVELLUR P.O., KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): - --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, BYPASS ROAD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. 3. PORT REGISTRATION OFFICER, IMMIGRATION WING, CALICUT AIRPORT. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE PORT REGISTRATION OFFICER, IMMIGRATION WING, CALICUT AIRPORT. ADV. SMT.JEBI MATHER HISHAM FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## V. RAMKUMAR, J .............................................. ## W.P. (C) No. 19128 of 2010 .................................................. Dated: 25[th] day of June, 2010200 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 248 of 2006 of Payyannur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. seeks to quash Ext.P3 notice dated 30-10-2009 and Ext.P7 seizure Form. As per Ext. P3 notice issued by the Passport Officer, Kozhikode the petitioner was called upon to surrender his Passport No. F. 3553649 dated 6-6-2005 before the Passport Officer along with his explanation in view of Sec. 13 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967. As per Ext.P7 seizure form the petitioner's passport was seized by the passport officer on 15-5-2010. 2. Ext.P3 notice was issued consequent on the J.F.C.M. , informing the passport officer that the petitioner is involved in Crime No. 248/06 which is pending before the Magistrate as C.P. No. 81/2009. It is W.P. (C) No. 19128 of 2010 -:2:- not necessary to go into the question of validity or otherwise of Ext. P3 notice. The above case against the petitioner consequent on it having been split up from S.C. 235 of 2007 on the file on the Asst. Sessions Court, Payyannur is pending as C.P. 159 of 2006 before the J.F.C.M. , Payyannur and after a revised committal is now pending before the Asst. Sessions Court, Payyannur as S.C. 638 of 2009. Petitioner who is employed as a Store Keeper in Abudabi is desirous of resuming his employment. 3. If a question of identity does not arise for consideration, the petitioner may file a petition before the Assistant Sessions Court seeking personal exemption in S.C. 638/09 by incorporating appropriate averments in his petition . In case the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from today, the learned Sessions Judge shall consider the same and pass favourable orders. In the light of the notification G.S.R.570 (E) dated 25-8-1993 and the decision in **Asok Kumar S.K. v. State of Kerala - 2009 (2) KLT 712** , permission is granted to the petitioner to go abroad for a period of two years from today. The Passport of the petitioner impounded by the Passport Authority shall be returned to him to enable him to go W.P. (C) No. 19128 of 2010 -:3:- abroad for a period of two years. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to appear before Court in case his presence before Court is felt inevitable at any stage of the trial. He shall also leave with the Court his local address as well as his address abroad besides the name and other particulars including phone number of his local counsel who could be contacted. Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2010. Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge W.P. (C) No. 19128 of 2010 -:4:- V. RAMKUMAR, J .............................................. Crl.M.C. No. .................................................. Dated: 25[th] day of June, 2010200 ## **ORDER** Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2010. ## V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ## V. RAMKUMAR, J .............................................. Crl.M.C. No. .................................................. W.P. (C) No. 19128 of 2010 -:5:- Dated: 25[th] day of June, 2010200 ## **ORDER** Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2010. ## V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. **==> picture [214 x 80] intentionally omitted <==** ## ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 1756 of 2009 on the file of the J.f.C.M. I, Aluva for an offence punishable under Section 37 (i) (vii) of Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (“the Act” for short). They had come before this Court on an earlier occasion by filing Crl.M.C. They W.P. (C) No. 19128 of 2010 -:6:- contended before this Court that the offence which is actually made out is one punishable under Section 38 of the said Act and not one under Sec. 37 (i) (vii) of the Act. This Court disposed of Crl.M.C. No. 4105/09 as per Annexure -I order dated 11-012010 permitting the petitioner to raise the said question before the Magistrate. No time limit was sought for or granted. The present prayer of the petitioner is to direct the Magistrate to consider the question as to whether a charge is to be framed or not within a time frame to be fixed by this court. There is no dispute that if the offence which is made out is one punishable under Sec. 37 (i)(vii) of the Act, it would involve a warrant trial and if the offence is one punishable under Sec. 38 of the Act it would be a summons trial. The learned Magistrate shall decide as to the offence which is actually made out in the case within one month of receipt of this order and shall thereupon proceed in accordance with law. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 18[th] day of June, 2010. ## Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) W.P. (C) No. 19128 of 2010 -:7:- ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to judge