The passport authority cannot mechanically reject an application for a passport based solely on the pendency of a criminal case. The applicant has the right to apply to the Criminal Court for permission to travel abroad despite not receiving summons.

JUDGMENT - Mrs. RANJANA DESAI, J.:---This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeks quashing of the order dated 5th January 1993 passed by respondent No. 1, the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai asking the petitioner to furnish Court order stating that he has been granted permission to go abroad and an undertaking that no case is pending against him in India to enable respondent No. 1 to issue/renew his passport.

2.In this petition there is some dispute as to whether this petition would lie on the Original Side or on the Appellate Side of the High Court. However, since Rule is issued in this matter as far back as on 23rd April 1993 and the facts in this case are admittedly covered by a decision of this Court, I do not wish to got into that aspect of the matter.

3.The petitioner was original accused No. 6 in Special Case No. 4 of 1986 pending on the file of the Special Court of Pune. The petitioner's brother one Deepak Chhabria was original accused No. 7 in that case. The said case arose out of C.R. No. 188 of 1986 registered at Paraskhana Police Station under section 120-B, 109, 420, 467, 471, 447-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 147(o) and 147(p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

4.Some relevant facts of this case may have to be stated. The application made by original accused No. 1 in the said Special Case for discharge on the ground that he was not a public servant was rejected by the Special Judge. He filed Writ Petition No. 738 of 1992 before this Court. The said Writ Petition No. 738 of 1992 and other companion petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench (Coram : A.C. Agarwal I.G. Shah, JJ.) by judgment dated 12th/13th January 1994. This Court held that the officers of the Co-operative Societies were not public servants. On 29th March 1994, original accused No. 7, and original accused Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 made an application before the Special Judge contending that in view of the decision of the Division Bench mentioned hereinabove they should be discharged as they are not public servants. The said application was disposed of by the Special Judge, who after referring to the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench held that the accused in Special Case No. 4 of 1986 were not public servants and, therefore, they could not be tried for offences committed by them as public servants and therefore, the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the said case. The learned Special Judge ordered that as far as other offences not relating to public servants were concerned, they should be returned to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Pune for presenting the same either to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate, First Class having jurisdiction. The Special Judge also ordered discharge of all the accused with direction asking them to remain present before the concerned Court. I am informed that the said case is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune being Regular Criminal Case No. 39 of 1995.

5.It appears that on 24th July, 1984 the premises of the petitioner were raided by the anti-corruption department and the petitioner's passport came to be seized. The petitioner made two applications to the trial Court one dated 2nd May, 1991 and the other dated 13th July, 1992 and was granted permission to go abroad as his passport was valid at the time of the said applications. As the petitioner's passport was to expire at the end of 1992, the petitioner made an application for renewal of his passport on 27th February, 1992. By reply dated 24th July 1992, he was informed that as the case was pending in the Special Court at Pune, the passport facilities under section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act would be refused. However, he was asked to appear before the Regional Passport Officer to represent his case. The petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document