M.Sudhakar Gupta v. State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.R.C. No.309 of 2018 ORDER:

The challenge in this Crl.R.C at the instance of the petitioner/A.11 is the order dated 25.10.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.1507 of 2017 in C.C.No.4 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge dismissed his petition seeking permission to leave India by directing the Passport Authority to renew his Passport by considering his application dated 11.03.2015. 2) Heard Sri G.L.V.Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State (Telangana). 3) It is seen that the W.P.No.8202 of 2015 filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad/2nd respondent therein in not considering his application dated 11.03.2015 for renewal of his Passport, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.04.

2017 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the criminal Court concerned for appropriate orders for renewal of the Passport. Thereupon the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1507 of 2017 in C.C.No.4 of 2003 before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, seeking permission. The said petition was dismissed by the aforesaid Court on the observation that C.C.No.4 of 2003 is an old case which is now coming up for trial and there are serious allegations against the petitioner/A.11 for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 468, 477-A of IPC and Section 5 of A.P.P.D.F.E.

Act in connection with misappropriation of amounts in Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank and the attendance of petitioner/A.11 is necessary during the trial. 4) As observed by the Trial Court, C.C.No.4 of 2003 is an old matter of the year 2003 and it is a grave economic offence. The matter is now coming up for trial and therefore, as rightly observed by the Trial Court, the appearance of all the accused is quite essential for smooth progress of the trial and needless to emphasize that for non-appearance of any of the accused, the progress of the trial will be hampered. In that view, the impugned order suffers no illegality or perversity.

5) In the result, I find no merits in the Criminal Revision Case and the same is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 22.02.2018 scs