- (1.) EXTRAORDINARY jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked on behalf of the petitioner to quash the notice dated 22.7.2009 (Annexure -5), issued by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 of 2009, corresponding to Special Case No. 13 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been directed to deposit his pass -port within a period of one week of the receipt of the notice.
(2.) AS per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner, who is a respectable/reputed business man, having substantial income from it as also from foreign investment, received a notice, as contained in Memo No. 3053 dated 9.7.2009 (Annexure -1), issued by the respondent no. 4 -Investigating Officer -cum - Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, Department of Vigilance, Ranchi, whereby, the respondent no. 4, in exercise of power as conferred under Section 160 Cr.P.C., directed the petitioner to appear before him on 13.7.2009 in connection with a case instituted under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Ex -Chief Minister and other Ministers for misusing their official position and indulging themselves in corrupt practices and embezzlement of public fund, as the petitioner was considered to be the person well aware of certain facts and circumstances of the said criminal case. Due to unavoidable reasons, the petitioner could not appear before the respondent no. 4 on 13.7.2009, though he appeared on the next date fixed i.e. on 15.7.2009, on which date, the petitioner was extensively interrogated on the point of (a) his relationship with Ex - Chief Minister (b) the connections of the petitioner with various Companies and business houses (c) the assets acquired by the petitioner in the last 3 -4 years and (d) about the mining leases if any granted to the petitioner by the Government. The petitioner satisfactorily answered the questions relating to the aforesaid matters. Thereupon, the petitioner was asked to furnish certain documents relating to his assets, liabilities, income, expenditures etc. and also income tax returns for past three years by 21.7.2009. As per direction, the petitioner again reported on 16.7.2009 on which date, he was again interrogated. Subsequently, on 21.7.2009 the petitioner did submit all those documents, which were desired, and then was asked to send his accountant on 23.7.2009 for explaining the accounts and balance sheet, submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, as per the verbal direction, the petitioner sent his accountant to the office of respondent no. 4, who interrogated the accountant. On the same day i.e. on 23.7.2009, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 22.7.2009 (Annexure -5), issued by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, whereby he was directed to deposit his pass -port in the court within a period of one week. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer in exercise of power as conferred under Section 91 Cr.P.C. served a notice dated 10.8.2009 to the petitioner directing him to submit photocopy of the pass -port and the statements relating to his foreign trips, which the petitioner, on getting notice, complied with, but as the order, passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, was quite illegal and without jurisdiction, this writ application has been filed. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, by directing the petitioner to deposit the pass -port, has virtually passed an order which does have effect of its impounding which the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi does not have any power, rather that power only lies with the Pass -Port Authority in terms of Section 10(3) of the Passport Act who even without following the procedure laid down in the Act and without giving opportunity to show -cause cannot pass order of impounding the pass -port.
(3.) LEARNED counsel further submits that if the said order passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi is carried out, petitioner's fundamental right to liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would be infringed, as he does have right to travel of which right the petitioner cannot be deprived of except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Thus, the impugned order infringing the fundamental right of the petitioner is quite illegal and without jurisdiction and hence, it is fit to be set aside.;