# Satish Singh v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 36
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-16
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 3015 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-44898
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law-Criminal
Application
Under Section 482 Cr.P.C - Section
190(1)(a) and Section 203 Cr.P. C -
Rejection of Complaint -It is not only the
prima facie case where the Magistrate
chooses to adopt the course provided
under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. on a
complaint but, the Magistrate is also
required
to
satisfy
himself
of
the
sufficiency of the material/evidence to
proceed against the accused which must
be sufficient for the complainant to
succeed
in
bringing
charge
home.
Application of Judicial mind- The criminal
justice process may not be initiated in a
mechanical manner - It must be disclosed
from the order that the Magistrate while
taking cognizance of an offence on a
complaint filed under Section 190(1)(a)
Cr.P.C., applied his judicial mind to the
relevant issues. It must be sufficiently
incorporated in the order - If the
Magistrate finds that the complaint does
not disclose any cause of action upon
examination of the complainant, the
Magistrate should not proceed with the
complaint and should dismiss it.

Glaring contradictions in the statement of the
complainants, witnesses and averments in the
3 All. Satish Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
37
complaint - No prima facie case made out -
Magistrate
refused
to
take
cognizance.
Revisional Court set aside the order on the
ground that at the time of summoning the
accused only prima facie case is required to be
considered- Contradictions in the statement of
the complainant and the averments in the
complaint were minor and on that basis it
could not be said that no prima facie case was
made out. High Court set-aside the order of
the revising authority.

B. The order passed by learned revisional
court is unsustainable and the present
revision (sic) Criminal Application under
section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) is allowed.
(Para 20,21,22,23,25,27,28)

Application u/s 482 Cr.Pc allowed (E-3)
List of cases cited -

## Text

36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that no cognizance could be
taken by the Magistrate without sanction
under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

37. Coming to the argument of Sri
Mehrotra that the complainant is a
habitual litigant and on that score also the
complaint deserves to be quashed, I am
afraid, I am unable to accept the said
submission
merely
because
the
complainant
has
been
barred
from
instituting Public Interest Litigation, there
cannot be any blanket bar against the
complainant initiating or resorting to legal
remedies as may be available to the
complainant in the facts of the given
cases. Thus, the submission of Sri
Mehrotra on that count deserves to be
rejected.

38. On the basis of the findings
recorded above, I am of the view that the
complaint as filed was specifically barred
under Section 17 (1) of the Lokayukta
Act and the order taking cognizance of
the offence was barred under Section 197
Cr.P.C. As such, the Case No. 8737 of
2015 (Dr. Nutan Thakur v. Sri N.K.
Mehrotra) pending in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow as well as
the
order
taking
cognizance
dated
3.9.2015 deserves to be quashed and are
accordingly quashed.

39. The application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off in terms of the
said direction.

40. No order as to costs.

41. Let a copy of this order be sent
to the concerned court for it being taken
on record.
----------
(2019)11ILR A36

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH , J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 3015 of 2015

Satish Singh ....Applicant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri S.K. Singh (In Person)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Kanhaiya Lal, Sri Umesh Singh

A.
Criminal
Law-Criminal
Application
Under Section 482 Cr.P.C - Section
190(1)(a) and Section 203 Cr.P. C -
Rejection of Complaint -It is not only the
prima facie case where the Magistrate
chooses to adopt the course provided
under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. on a
complaint but, the Magistrate is also
required
to
satisfy
himself
of
the
sufficiency of the material/evidence to
proceed against the accused which must
be sufficient for the complainant to
succeed
in
bringing
charge
home.
Application of Judicial mind- The criminal
justice process may not be initiated in a
mechanical manner - It must be disclosed
from the order that the Magistrate while
taking cognizance of an offence on a
complaint filed under Section 190(1)(a)
Cr.P.C., applied his judicial mind to the
relevant issues. It must be sufficiently
incorporated in the order - If the
Magistrate finds that the complaint does
not disclose any cause of action upon
examination of the complainant, the
Magistrate should not proceed with the
complaint and should dismiss it.

Glaring contradictions in the statement of the
complainants, witnesses and averments in the
3 All. Satish Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
37
complaint - No prima facie case made out -
Magistrate
refused
to
take
cognizance.
Revisional Court set aside the order on the
ground that at the time of summoning the
accused only prima facie case is required to be
considered- Contradictions in the statement of
the complainant and the averments in the
complaint were minor and on that basis it
could not be said that no prima facie case was
made out. High Court set-aside the order of
the revising authority.

B. The order passed by learned revisional
court is unsustainable and the present
revision (sic) Criminal Application under
section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) is allowed.
(Para 20,21,22,23,25,27,28)

Application u/s 482 Cr.Pc allowed (E-3)
List of cases cited -

1. Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749

2. S.R. Sukumar Vs S. Sunaad Raghuram,
(2015) 9 SCC 609

3. Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs Khazir Mohammad
Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )

1. The petitioner is a practicing lawyer
of this court. He has filed the present petition
under section 482 Cr.PC for setting aside
order dated 31.03.2015 passed by revisional
Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar
Nagar in Criminal Revision No.231 of 2013
setting aside the order dated 20.09.2013
passed by II-Additional Civil Judge(Junior
Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar
Nagar in Complaint Case No.250 of 2013
whereby the learned magistrate had rejected
the complaint of respondent No.2 under
Section 203 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner and respondent
No.2 are the resident of the same village.
Petitioner's bhumidhari land is adjacent to
Abadi land of the village. Respondent
No.2 had constructed a house near the
land of the petitioner. It is alleged that
respondent No.2 had been trying to
encroach upon the land of the petitioner.

3. Respondent No.2 belongs to a
political party and the said political party
was in power in the State at the relevant
time. Respondent No.2 was making
endeavour to encroach the land of the
petitioner in the year 2003. Thereafter, he
usurped the land of the petitioner and
made construction over it. The petitioner,
however, complained to the revenue
authorities against the encroachment of
his land by respondent No.2 and the
revenue authorities evicted respondent
No.2 from the land of the petitioner.

4. When respondent No.2 did not
succeed in his attempt to usurp the land of
the petitioner and encroach the land illegally,
he filed an application dated 05.02.2013
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction
to register an FIR against the petitioner and
his family members and investigate thereof.

5. Learned magistrate treated the
said application filed by respondent No.2
as a complaint and proceeded to record
the statement of the complainant and
witness(es) under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. The case was registered as
Complaint Case No.250 of 2013. Learned
magistrate, however, after considering the
statement of the complainant (respondent
No.2) and witnesses who were brother
and daughter of respondent No.2 arrived
at a conclusion that there were glaring
contradictions in the averments/allegation
in the complaint and the statements of the
complainant and the witnesses which
were inconsistent and contradictory.
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Learned Magistrate vide a
reasoned
order
dated
20.09.2013
dismissed the complaint under Section
203 Cr.P.C.

7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal
of the complaint, respondent No.2 filed a
revision being Criminal Revision No.231
of 2013 in which the impugned order
dated 31.03.2015 has been passed.

8. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Singh,
the petitioner in-person and learned
A.G.A. for the State. Despite notice no
one has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent No.2.

9. Learned Magistrate in the order
dated 20.09.2013 after considering the
statements of the complainant and the
witnesses had come to the conclusion that
no prima facie case was made out for
summoning the proposed accused and,
therefore, rejected the Complaint Case
No.250 of 2013. Learned Magistrate had
recorded a finding that the complainant in
his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
had stated that at the time of incident his
son, Gulab was also present with him at
his agricultural field. He further said that
the accused assaulted him and his son by
kicks and fists. However, neither in the
complaint nor in the statement of the
witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. there
was any mention of his son being present
at the time of incident.

10. Learned magistrate had further
recorded a finding of fact that the
complainant in his statement had said that
the accused thereafter, assaulted him and
his son inside the house and on raising
alarm one Ram Charan and his daughter,
Anju came there. However, the witnesses
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. said that the
accused had assaulted the complainant and
his daughter inside the house but in the
complaint, Anju, the daughter of the
complainant was nowhere mentioned. Thus,
there were glaring contradictions in the
statement of the complainants, witnesses and
averments in the complaint. Specific stand of
the complainant was that the accused
assaulted the complainant and his son,
however, in the complaint it was alleged that
the accused assaulted only the complainant
and in the statement of the witnesses under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. it was alleged that the
accused assaulted the complainant and his
daughter, Anju. It had further been observed
by the learned Magistrate that according to
the averments in the complaint, the accused
had assaulted the complainant inside his
house by lathi whereas in the statement
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant
did not mention the assault by Lathi and
Danda. It was alleged that the accused
assaulted him by kicks and cricket bat.

11. Considering these glaring
contradictions
in
the
complaint,
statements of the witnesses and statement
of the complainant, the learned Magistrate
did not find sufficient ground to summon
the accused and, therefore, dismissed
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

12. Learned Revisional Court, however,
has set aside the said order on the ground that
at the time of summoning the accused only
prima facie case is required to be considered.
Contradictions in the statement of the
complainant and the averments in the
complaint were minor and on that basis it
could not be said that no prima facie case was
made out.

13.

I
have
considered
the
submissions of the petitioner and learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3 All. Satish Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
39

14. When a Magistrate receives a
complaint, it is not necessary for the
Magistrate to take cognizance for the
facts alleged in the complaint which
would disclose commission of an offence.
The magistrate has discretion in the
matter.
If
a
complaint
discloses
cognizable offence, the magistrate may
forward the complaint to the police for
investigation
under
section
156(3)
Cr.P.C., such a course is conducive to
justice and to save the valuable time of
the Magistrate from being wasted in
enquiring into a matter by himself.
Investigation is a primary duty of the
police and, therefore, if the complaint
discloses
cognizable
offence,
the
Magistrate ordinarily should refer the
complaint to the police for investigation.
If the Magistrate refers the complaint to
the police for investigation, he is not
required to examine the complaint on oath
inasmuch as he is not taking cognizance
of any offence therein. However, if he
takes cognizance and adopts the course in
chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., thereafter he
would not be competent to revert back the
precognizance stage.

15. When a magistrate chooses to
take cognizance on a complaint, he can
adopt any of the following alternatives:-

(a) He can peruse the complaint
and if satisfied that there are sufficient
grounds
for
proceeding,
he
can
straightway issue process to the accused
but before he does so, he must comply
with the requirements of Section 200 and
record the evidence of the complainant
and his witnesses; or

(b) The Magistrate can postpone
the issue of process and direct an enquiry
by himself; or

(c) The Magistrate can postpone
the issue of process and direct an enquiry
by any other person or an investigation by
the police.

16.

If
the
Magistrate
after
considering
the
statement
of
the
complainant and, the witnesses or as a
result of the investigation and the enquiry
ordered is not satisfied that there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can
dismiss the complaint.

17. The question which arises for
consideration in the present case is
whether in dismissing the complaint
under
Section
203
Cr.P.C.
after
considering the contents of the complaint
and the statements of the complainant and
witnesses, did the learned Magistrate
commit any illegality or exercised his
jurisdiction improperly or violate any
provision of Cr.P.C. which warranted the
learned Revisional Court to interfere with
the order passed by learned Magistrate?

18.

Learned
Magistrate
after
considering
the
averments
in
the
complaint, statements of the complainant
and the witnesses was of the opinion that
there were glaring contradictions and
there was no sufficient material for
summoning the accused. Can it be said
that
the
discretion
vested
in
the
Magistrate was exercised arbitrarily or
against the provision of Cr.P.C.?

19. Learned Revisional court has set
aside the order dated 31.03.2015 of the
learned magistrate on the ground that the
learned Magistrate is only required to
examine whether a prima facie case is
made out or not against the accused.
Revisional Court has also opined that the
contradictions in the statements of the
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant and witnesses and averments
in the complaint are minor.

20. It is well settled that before
issuing process and setting criminal
proceedings in motion, the learned
Magistrate is not only required to see the
prima facie case but has also to be
satisfied that there is sufficient material to
proceed
against
the
accused
after
examining the contents of the complaint
and the statements of the complainant and
the witnesses and other evidence.

21 . The Magistrate has to form an
opinion of a prima facie case at the time of
taking cognizance but when the Magistrate
issuing process to summon the accused, he
should see whether there is sufficient material
to proceed against the accused after
considering the averments of the complaint
and the statements of the complainant and the
witnesses as well as other evidence.

22. It is no longer res integra that
summoning an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set
into motion of course. It is not sufficient that a
complainant files a complaint and gets his
statement recorded and brings one witness for
summoning the accused. Learned Magistrate
is required to apply his mind to the facts of the
case and law applicable thereto. He must
examine the nature of allegation made in the
complaint and the evidence both oral and
documentary in support thereof. The evidence
must be sufficient for the complainant to
succeed in bringing charge home. The
Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods
Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5
SCC 749 in para 28 has held as under:-

28. Summoning of an accused in
a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion as
a matter of course. It is not that the
complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the
complaint to have the criminal law set
into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that
he has applied his mind to the facts of the
case and the law applicable thereto. He
has to examine the nature of allegations
made in the complaint and the evidence
both oral and documentary in support
thereof and would that be sufficient for
the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that
the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the
time of recording of preliminary evidence
before summoning of the accused. The
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the
evidence brought on record and may even
himself put questions to the complainant
and his witnesses to elicit answers to find
out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence
is prima facie committed by all or any of
the accused.

23. Learned Magistrate has to apply
his judicial mind to the contents of the
complaint and the material filed therewith
for taking judicial notice of an offence.
The order must disclose that learned
Magistrate while taking cognizance of an
offence on a complaint filed under
Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. has applied his
judicial mind to the allegations in the
complaint,
the
statement
of
the
complainant and, if the Magistrate finds
that the complaint does not disclose any
cause of action upon examination of the
complainant, the Magistrate should not
proceed with the complaint and should
dismiss it.

24. The Supreme Court in the case
of
S.R.
Sukumar
v.
S.
Sunaad
3 All. Satish Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
41
Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609 while
explaining
the
meaning
on
taking
cognizance of the offence on a complaint
in paras 11 and 12 has held as under:-

11.
Section
200
CrPC
contemplates
a
Magistrate
taking
cognizance of an offence on complaint to
examine the complaint and examine upon
oath the complainant and the witnesses
present, if any. Then normally three
courses are available to the Magistrate.
The Magistrate can either issue summons
to the accused or order an inquiry under
Section 202 CrPC or dismiss the
complaint under Section 203 CrPC. Upon
consideration of the statement of the
complainant and the material adduced at
that stage if the Magistrate is satisfied
that there are sufficient grounds to
proceed, he can proceed to issue process
under Section 204 CrPC. Section 202
CrPC contemplates "postponement of
issue of process". It provides that the
Magistrate on receipt of a complaint of
an offence, of which he is authorised to
take cognizance may, if he thinks fit,
postpone the issue of process for
compelling the attendance of the person
complained against, and either inquire
into the case himself, or have an inquiry
made by any Magistrate subordinate to
him, or an investigation made by a police
officer, or by some other person for the
purpose of deciding whether or not there
is sufficient ground for proceeding. If the
Magistrate finds no sufficient ground for
proceeding, he can dismiss the complaint
by recording briefly the reasons for doing
so as contemplated under Section 203
CrPC. A Magistrate takes cognizance of
an offence when he decides to proceed
against the person accused of having
committed that offence and not at the time
when the Magistrate is just informed
either by the complainant by filing the
complaint or by the police report about th

12. "Cognizance" therefore has
a reference to the application of judicial
mind by the Magistrate in connection with
the commission of an offence and not
merely to a Magistrate learning that some
offence had been committed. Only upon
examination of the complainant, the
Magistrate will proceed to apply the
judicial mind whether to take cognizance
of the offence or not. Under Section 200
CrPC, when the complainant is examined,
the Magistrate cannot be said to have
ipso facto taken the cognizance, when the
Magistrate was merely gathering the
material on the basis of which he will
decide whether a prima facie case is
made out for taking cognizance of the
offence or not. "Cognizance of offence"
means taking notice of the accusations
and applying the judicial mind to the
contents of the complaint and the material
filed therewith. It is neither practicable
nor desirable to define as to what is
meant by taking cognizance. Whether the
Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence or not will depend upon the facts
and circumstances of the particular case.

25. It is also well established that it
is the duty of the Magistrate while
passing an order issuing process to an
accused to apply his judicial mind to the
relevant
issues
and
that
must
be
sufficiently incorporated in the order.
However, it is not required that a detailed
speaking and reasoned order should be
passed at the stage of Sections 190 and
204 Cr.P.C. If the order does not disclose
application of judicial mind, the order
passed by the learned Magistrate issuing
process is liable to be quashed by the
High Court in exercise of its power under
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 482 Cr.P.C. As mentioned above
the criminal powers against an accused
must not be issued in a mechanical
manner.

26. The Supreme Court in the case
of Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir
Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420
has explained the satisfaction required on
the part of the Magistrate for formation of
an opinion to issue process under Section
204 IPC on a complaint under Section
190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.

Paras 22 and 23 of the aforesaid
report are extracted herein below:-

22. The steps taken by the
Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC
followed by Section 204 CrPC should
reflect that the Magistrate has applied his
mind to the facts and the statements and
he is satisfied that there is ground for
proceeding further in the matter by asking
the person against whom the violation of
law is alleged, to appear before the court.
The satisfaction on the ground for
proceeding would mean that the facts
alleged in the complaint would constitute
an offence, and when considered along
with the statements recorded, would,
prima
facie,
make
the
accused
answerable before the court. No doubt, no
formal order or a speaking order is
required to be passed at that stage. The
Code of Criminal Procedure requires
speaking order to be passed under
Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is
dismissed and that too the reasons need
to be stated only briefly. In other words,
the Magistrate is not to act as a post
office in taking cognizance of each and
every complaint filed before him and
issue process as a matter of course. There
must be sufficient indication in the order
passed by the Magistrate that he is
satisfied that the allegations in the
complaint constitute an offence and when
considered along with the statements
recorded and the result of inquiry or
report of investigation under Section 202
CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable
before the criminal court, there is ground
for proceeding against the accused under
Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for
appearance. The application of mind is
best demonstrated by disclosure of mind
on the satisfaction. If there is no such
indication in a case where the Magistrate
proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC,
the High Court under Section 482 CrPC
is bound to invoke its inherent power in
order to prevent abuse of the power of the
criminal court. To be called to appear
before the criminal court as an accused is
serious matter affecting one's dignity,
self-respect and image in society. Hence,
the process of criminal court shall not be
made a weapon of harassment.

23. Having gone through the
order passed by the Magistrate, we are
satisfied that there is no indication on the
application of mind by the learned
Magistrate in taking cognizance and
issuing process to the appellants. The
contention that the application of mind
has to be inferred cannot be appreciated.
The further contention that without
application of mind, the process will not
be issued cannot also be appreciated.
Though no formal or speaking or
reasoned orders are required at the stage
of Sections 190/204 CrPC, there must be
sufficient indication on the application of
mind by the Magistrate to the facts
constituting commission of an offence and
the statements recorded under Section
200 CrPC so as to proceed against the
offender. No doubt, the High Court is
3 All. Jyotinder Singh Randhawa Vs. State of U.P.
43
right in holding that the veracity of the
allegations is a question of evidence. The
question is not about veracity of the
allegations, but whether the respondents are
answerable at all before the criminal court.
There is no indication in that regard in the
order passed by the learned Magistrate.

27. To form a prima facie
satisfaction as to whether there are
grounds for proceedings on a complaint
filed under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.
against the accused, the Magistrate is
required to consider the averments of the
complaint to examine prima facie truth
and inherent improbabilities apparent in
the allegations made in the complaint. If
the Magistrate comes to the conclusion
that the allegations are improbable
without considering the defence of the
accused, learned Magistrate should not
proceed with the complaint.

28. In the present case, the learned
Magistrate for valid and cogent reasons after
considering the averments of the complaint
and the statements of the complainant and the
witnesses was of the opinion that there was no
sufficient material/ ground to proceed against
the accused. It is not only the prima facie case
where the Magistrate chooses to adopt the
course provided under Chapter XV of the
Cr.P.C. on a complaint but the Magistrate is
also required to satisfy himself of the
sufficiency of the material/evidence to
proceed against the accused. The learned
Magistrate cannot be said to have exercised
his discretion improperly or against any
express provision of law. The learned
Magistrate after applying his judicial mind to
the evidence and material before him had
dismissed the complaint under Section 203
Cr.P.C. The said order passed by the learned
Magistrate should not have been interfered
with by the Revisional Court.

29. In view of the aforesaid, I am of
the view that the order passed by learned
revisional court is unsustainable and the
present revision is allowed. Judgment and
order
dated
31.03.2015
passed
by
Revisional Court is set aside.
----------
(2019)11ILR A43

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH , J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 5778 of 2019

Jyotinder Singh Randhawa ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Arun Sinha, Sri Siddhartha Sinha, Sri
Umang Agarwal.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code, 1973 Sections 10(3) and 10(4) of
the Passports Act, 1967- Impounding of
passport. The Passports Act, 1967 is a
complete code read with the Passport
Rules, 1980. Held: Merely on the basis of
anticipation mentioned in the report of
the
Prosecuting
Officer
presumption
cannot be drawn at the time of passing
the order for retaining the passport -The
court below is bound to record its
satisfaction for the same- The trial court
cannot retain the passport on the
request of the Prosecuting Officer. (Para
12,14,16,17 & 18)

Application for release of passport of the
applicant
rejected-Report
of
Prosecuting
Officer that in case the passport is returned to
the applicant he may leave the country. No
written request was made by the Forest