IMPORTANT POINTS
The PVR does not refer to the stage of the crime-This lacuna leads to inconvenience and incomplete information-The police send the PVR to the Passport Officer- They do mention about the crimes, if any, pending against the applicant-The Passport Officer has no way of knowing whether he could invoke Section 10 (2) (f) of the Act-The avoidable difficulty of having inadequate information about the crime-especially its stage- And it inflicts needless inconvenience on the passport holders- Mere registration of crime may deprive them of the passport-It leads to litigation-again avoidable-The Director General of Police, State of Kerala, will take suitable administrative measures to modify the PVR-The police report will contain not only the details of the crime registered against an applicant-but also its stage: especially, whether a charge-sheet is filed and whether cognizance is taken (in cognizable cases).

Introduction

A person obtains a passport temporarily-Tatkal-secures employment abroad, and leaves the country. Later, the passport officials get an adverse report against him from the police: the person is an accused in a crime. The official wants the person to surrender the passport. The notices sent to the address in India, the person, then abroad, does not respond. The officials treat the person’s failure to respond to notice as a statutory violation. On the person’s return to India, they impound his passport. The officials assert that a crime is “pending” against the person. When does a crime amount to its “pending”?

Facts in Brief:

2. Petitioner Muhammed applied under 'Thatkal' scheme and, on 24.11.2014, obtained a passport, from the 2nd respondent, the Regional Passport Officer. After securing a job, he went abroad and came back on 27.01.2018. The Port Registration Officer at the Cochin International Airport, through Ext.P1, seized the petitioner's passport. It was seized because Muhammed is an accused in Crime No.243 of 2014 of Valayam Police Station, but he allegedly suppressed that fact.

3. Once the Port Registration Officer forwarded the impounded passport to the Regional Passport Officer (the “Passport Officer”), Muhammed filed Ext.P2 representation. The Passport Officer, in turn, replied through Ext.P3: Muhammed could get the passport back if he produced any proof that he had been acquitted of the crime. The Ext.P3 reveals that the Passport Officer wanted Muhammed's case re-verified. The Police did verify and send another report affirming that the criminal proceedings had been pending against him. Assailing Ext.P3, Muhammed filed this Writ Petition.

Submissions:

The Petitioner’s:

4. Sri Zubair Pulikool, the petitioner’s counsel, has submitted that the crime was registered on 26.05.2014 against third parties. He contends that Muhammed, initially, was not an accused; he was later added to the crime. Muhammed did not know, asserts Sri Pulikool, about the pending crime, when he applied for the passport because, by then, he had received neither summons nor warrant.

5. Sri Pulikool has also contended that soon after securing the passport, Muhammed left the country and came back only recently. Eventually, he submits that Sections 6(2) (f) and 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act mandate that there ought to be criminal proceedings “pending.” According to him, unless the court has taken cognizance of the crime, the question of the proceedings pending does not arise. In this regard, he has relied on Satwant Singh Sawhney and Another v. D.Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi AIR 1967 SC 1836, Abhijit Sen v. Superintendent (Admn.), Regional Passport Officer, Kolkata and Others 2004 CriL J 1281, Daler Singh v. Union of India and Others AIR 2015 P&H 206, Franjo T.Francis v. Varghese Kuruvila 2018 (2) KLJ 180 and Venkatesh Kandasamy v. Government of India AIR 2015 Mad 3.

Respondents’:

6. Smt. C. G. Preetha, the Central Government Counsel, has strenuously contended that the impounding of passport is unassailable. She has drawn my attention to the statement filed for the respondents 1 and 2. She submits that the Passport Officer, in December 2014, issued the Ext.R1(a) notice to Muhammed's known address. For this he invoked Section 6(2)(f) of the Act. In his absence, Muhammed's parents refused to take the notice. The officer sent another notice, Ext.R1(b), in July 2015, asking Muhammed to show cause why the passport should not be recalled. This one, too, remained unserved.

7. Eventually, the Passport Officer, in November 2015, issued the Ext.R1(c) ‘impounding notice’. The notice required Muhammed to return the passport. As this also did not reach him, on Muhammed’s return to the country, the authorities impounded the passport.

8. Smt. C.G. Preetha has eventually submitted that the Passport Officer has been circumspect to get the “Police Verification Report” (PVR) twice. On both the occasions, she stresses, the police informed