2002 Supreme(Guj) 649

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.B.MAJMUDAR
Dhiren Baxi - Appellant
Versus
Regional Passport Officer - Respondent
S.C.A. 348 of 2000
Decided On : 09/03/2002

Headnote:

Constitution of India -Article 226 -Indian Penal code 476, 462, 465, 473,420,120-B -Petitioner is a practising Chartered Accountant. Since he was desirous of having a passport, he made an application, with all necessary papers. At the time of processing the passport application, the authority found that Some criminal complaints are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked by the Authority to the produce the copy of the judgment and the said information was called for from the petitioner by way of letter dated 21st April, 1997. The petitioner was informed that if he failed to produce such copy, the case of the petitioner will be treated as closed. The authority has informed the petitioner to produce copy of the Courts judgment on the ground that criminal complaints are filed against the petitioner, which are registered as Crime Register I Nos. 3 of 1997, 4 of 1997 and 6 of 1997. At the relevant time, the complaints were filed before the concerned Police Station. learned advocate for the petitioner that, ultimately, the petitioner was released an bail in connection with all the aforesaid criminal cases and at present, the aforesaid cases are pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Rajkot, as criminal Case Nos. 2819 of 1998, 2774 of 1998 and 6199 of 1998. complainant in all these criminal cases is the Gujarat State financial Corporation and the said criminal Cases are filed against him of the Indian Penal code on the ground that the petitioner, being a professional Chartered Accountant, gave false certificate to accused Nos. I and 2,. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the aforesaid cases are pending before the competent criminal court. Since at the relevant time, the FIR was filed before the, appropriate Police Station, there was an adverse Police report against the petitioner and the Police Authority informed the passport authority that the petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid criminal cases and criminal cases are pending against him. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the passport authority asked the petitioner to produce the judgment of the criminal court. Since, however, no final judgment was given in the criminal cases, it was not possible for the petitioner to produce such judgment as demanded by the Passport authority. Passport Authority also informed the petitioner by letter that the petitioner may submit the copy of the judgment along with his explanation as to why fact about the pendency of the criminal cases is not mentioned by the petitioner. It is argued learned Advocate for the petitioner, that since the FIR was lodged subsequently, after the petitioners application to the Passport Authority, naturally the said fact was not mentioned by the petitioner in his passport application. Ultimately, by filing this petition, it is prayed that the authority may be directed to issue passport in favour of the present petitioner -Held petitioner approached the magistrate for permitting him to go abroad, but, at that time, the same was rejected on the ground that he has not imposed any condition to the effect that he cannot go abroad. However, in view of the factual aspect, as discusse above, the petitioner is permitted to apply for a specific purpose, allowing him to go abroad for a limited period, which he may indicate in his application and the Magistrate may decide such application an its own merits. In my view, the order of the Magistrate will be necessary in view of the notification of the Central Government, as indicated above, and on the basis of such order, the passport authority is required to decide the application of the petitioner for issuance of passport, keeping in mind the, observations made in this order, as well as the Notification issued by the Government in this behalf, if any such application is - made before the concerned Magistrate, the magistrate may decide the same in accordance with law and expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such application from the petitioner. The Magistrate may pass appropriate order whether such permission is required to be given; and if yes, for how much period such permission is to be granted. It will be open for the petitioner to place reliance on this order at the time of submitting his application before the magistrate. petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent, as indicated in this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs -Petition is Allowed.