DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
Muhammed – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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 Re
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.