IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of disclosing ongoing criminal proceedings when applying for passport issuance, balancing the rights of the accused with the integrity of the trial process.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the following prayers:

“(i) To call for the records pertaining to Annexure A6 order on the file of the Honourable Sessions Court, Kavarati, U.T. of Lakshadweep and set aside the same.

(ii) Direct the 2nd Respondent to release the passport bearing No. X2830538 of the petitioner.

(iii) Pass an order allowing Annexure A5 and permit the Petitioner to travel abroad for employment subject to any conditions as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

(iv) Order any other reliefs as deemed appropriate by this Honourable Court in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Union Territory of Lakshadweep and the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Regional Passport Officer in detail.

3. The petitioner herein is the second accused in SC No. 4/2019 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kavaratti, where the 1st accused (brother of the 2nd accused) and second accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354B, 323, 506, 377, 511 and 376 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short).

4. As on 05.08.2024, the petitioner had filed Crl. M.P. No. 90/2024 before the Sessions Court, seeking issuance of No Objection Certificate for issuance of passport on such terms and conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Court. In the petition, the petitioner contended that he did not commit the offences and also that he has been working as a seaman on various ships and vessels sailing at Lakshadweep. According to him, initially, a passport bearing No. X2830538 was issued to him from Regional Passport Office, Cochin on 19.01.2024. Thereafter, the Immigration Department seized the passport of the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the explanation given by him for the notice issued on 25.03.2024 with direction to the petitioner to approach the Passport Authority for more clarification. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at present the petitioner is jobless and he has to work abroad in order to maintain his family. Therefore, the petitioner wants a passport and accordingly he pressed for appropriate relief.

5. The learned Sessions Judge addressed the grievance of the petitioner at par with objection raised by the 1st respondent herein and finally disallowed the prayer mainly finding that the petitioner obtained a passport suppressing the pendency of criminal case and that he had been facing prosecution under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967. Therefore, he was not entitled to get No Objection Certificate from the Court to obtain a fresh passport to legalise the fraud committed by him.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, while reiterating objection raised before the Sessions Court in the matter of suppression of material facts, submitted that the petitioner has been stalling the trial of the case, which is posted on 03.12.2024 for scheduling the trial. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, applying for passport after suppressing details about criminal case is a serious matter and this is the plank on which the Sessions Court disallowed the prayer. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that therefore, trial may be expedited and closed at the earliest. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel opposed issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’.

7. The learned Senior Panel counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he applied for re-issuance of passport after suppressing pendency of criminal case against him. That apart, when he applied for No Objection Certificate before the trial court as per Annexure A5 petition, he did not disclose seizure of the passport by the Authority by way of impounding. Thus the case of the petitioner is fledged wit