ORDER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 13.10.2004 made in Crl.R.C.No.137 of 2004 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, thereby confirming the orders passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai in M.P.No.896 of 2004 dated 5.5.2004 and M.P.No.2671 of 2003 dated 30.9.2003, further praying to return of the passport bearing No.Z 073913 dated 7.2.2000 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chennai, which is in the custody of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai-8. 2. Today, whent the above matter was taken up for consideration, on a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the Special Public Prosecutor for Customs contra, it comes to be seen that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent on 11.7.2002 in R.R.No.61 of 2002 for the alleged offence under Sec.132 of the Customs Act, for being found in possession of Indian Currencies valued at Rs.41,60,000 and for attempting to smuggle the same, out of India by concealing them in his suitcases; that the petitioner was granted bail in Crl.O.P.No.20489 of 2002 and subsequently, the petitioner along with one Kiran Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. A.K.Exports,were detained under COFEPOSA proceedings dated 20.9.2002; that his detention order was quashed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.7.2003; that at the time of his arrest, his passport bearing No.Z 073193 dated 7.2.2002 was seized and is now in the custody of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai; that the investigation in the case is over and show cause notice was issued and adjudicated and the petitioner was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 for contravening the provisions of Sec.135 of the Customs Act; that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai, and the same is pending. 3. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that he approached the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Chennai, vide M.P.No.2671 of 2003 for the return of his passport; that the learned Magistrate ordered return of his passport on condition that he should deposit Rs.5,00,000 along with certain other conditions; that seeking modification, the petitioner filed M.P.No.896 of 2002, which was modified to the effect that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.3,00,000, instead of Rs.5,00,000; that aggrieved, the petitioenr filed Crl.R.C.No.137 of 2004, which was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge on ground that revision is not maintainable before that Court and hence, the petitioner has come forward to file the above Criminal Original Petition on grounds that he has no means to deposit Rs.3,00,000 as ordered by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Chennai, for return of his passport and that for Kiran Kumar, the main accused in this case, the passport has been returned by this Court, without any condition vide its order in Crl.O.P.No.42778 of 2003 dated 28.1.2004; that applying the same principles he is also entitled for return of his passport, without any condition. 4. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of hte petitioner would only reiterate the above facts extracted herein, which form part of the above Criminal Original Petition and would seek the relief extracted supra ordering to return the passport of the petitioner bearing No.Z 073913 dated 7.2.2000 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai. 5. 4. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of hte petitioner would only reiterate the above facts extracted herein, which form part of the above Criminal Original Petition and would seek the relief extracted supra ordering to return the passport of the petitioner bearing No.Z 073913 dated 7.2.2000 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai. 5. On the contrary, on the part of the Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, it would be contended that the petitioner was found in possession of unaccounted Indian currency of Rs.41,60,000, concealed in his baggage, in respect of which, adjudication and other prosecution proceedings are pending; that if the passport of the petitioner is returned, there is every possibility of fleeing from the country and the jurisdiction of the Court as well, since, the petitioner is in the habit of indulging in similar types of smuggling activities; that the jurisdiction Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai, before whom, a petition was filed seeking to return of the passport and the said Magistrate while ordering return of the passport directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000 with two solvent sureties, for a like sum, besides certain other conditions; that the said amount of Rs.5,00,000 had also been modified to the effect of depositing a sum of Rs.3,00,000, instead of Rs.5,00,000 on a further petition filed before him for modification of condition No.1, and it is a case in which, the Court has retained the passport and it is only under the custody of the trial Court ordering to be detained for the purpose of completing the trial and the same is neither impounded by the Department nor by the learned Magistrate; that since the learned Magistrate himself has ordered for the return of the passport on such conditions, this criminal original petition does not merit consideration and on such grounds would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition. 6. 6. In consideration of the fact pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that, it is the case of the petitioner being found in possession of a sum of Rs.41,60,000 in Indian currency and attempting to smuggle the same out of the country in suitcases; that at the time of his arrest along with the currency and other items the passport of the petitioner was also seized and entrusted to the custody of the Metropolitan Mmagistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai; that the case is still pending and the trial court has also ordered return of the passport, imposing some conditions, particularly, to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000 with two solvent sureties for a like sum and it is against imposition of such condition the petitioner has come forward to file the above petition, praying to order return of the said passport. 7. The petitioner has cited an order made in Crl.O.P.No.42778 of 2003 dated 28.1.2004, wherein, a learned single Judge of this Court has ordered to return the passport in favour of the first accused and therefore the petitioner would pray for a similar order to return the passport of the petitioner also, without conditions. 8. A perusal of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge would glorify the petitioner/accused therein stating that he had produced invoices to the value of Rs.2.25 crores to show that he had made exports to various countries like Dubai, Singapore, England, Canada etc. and therefore, since the petitioner had to visit the said countries for business purposes and that no condition was imposed in the bail order that he should not leave the country and that under Sec.10(3) of the Passport Act only the passport Authorities under the Passport Act can impound only the passport if a case is made out and the Customs Authorities cannot impound and in appreciation of all these, the learned single Judge has ordered return of the passport in favour of the petitioner therein. 9. 9. However, this Court is not in agreement with such of the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge, while dealing with the similar petition for the return of the passport in favour of the first accused, since it is immaterial how much wealth the petitioner has amassed in his business or whichever business that he is undertaking, or whichever country with which he has established his business, but, what is the accusation against the petitioner/accused is the point for consideration. 10. Here is a case, wherein, the petitioner is accused of attempting to smuggle Rs.41,60,000 in Indian currency from out of the country in suitcases and the case is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Moreover, Sec.10(3) of the Ppassport Act has absolutely no application to the case in hand, since, the passport is not impounded by the Customs Authorities, so as to say that only the passport authorities can impound the same. In fact, the question of impounding the passport does not arise at all in cases of such nature, wherein, pending disposal of the case registered against the petitioner and others, their passport are being with held by the Court and therefore, application of Sec.10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967, does not arise at all, but the learned Single Judge relying on that provision of law has ordered the return of the passport, with which, this Court is not in agreement and therefore, there is no point in the petitioner citing a bad precedent for an order to be passed ;by this Court also following the earlier order dated 28.1.2004 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.42778 of 2003 and hence, this Court has to arrive at its own conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, in consideration of which, the only conclusion that this Court could arrive at is to dismiss the above Ccriminal Original Petition, confirming the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which is the right that could be passed in the circumstances of the case and hence, the following order. In result, the above Criminal Original Petition does not merit acceptance, but becomes liable only to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly.