The court emphasized that the Passports Act does not confer absolute power upon a citizen to obtain a passport and highlighted the conditions under which the passport authority can refuse to issue a passport. It also clarified the implications of the notification dated 28.06.1993 and the eligibility criteria for obtaining a passport under the Act.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), whereby petitioner's application seeking Court's permission for issuance of passport has been rejected.

2. The facts necessary for consideration in the present petition are that the petitioner was facing trial for the offences under sections 472, 420, 120B, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in the Criminal Case No.89/2019. During pendency of trial, the petitioner moved an application before the learned trial Court seeking necessary directions to the passport authority to issue him a passport. The said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.07.2022, observing inter-alia that no urgency was shown by the petitioner before the Court below that he is in harsh need to visit Canada and Australia and that the petitioner is not having a valid passport.

3. Mr. D.K. Godara, learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 72 years and he wishes to visit abroad to meet his children who are living in Canada and Australia but due to pendency of the aforesaid case, he is facing difficulty in issuance of passport. It is further submitted that pendency of a criminal case would not be an impediment for the Court in issuance of passport. Learned counsel further submits that getting a passport under the Passports Act, 1967 is a statutory right of a citizen and the same cannot be denied for untenable grounds. He emphasised that what is required by the law is that an accused has to obtain permission from the Court before leaving the country and that he would be required to obtain visa.

4. Mr. S.K. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State submits that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected petitioner's application as the same was without requisite particulars. He invites the Court's attention towards the notification No.GSR 570(E) dated 28.06.1993 and argues that without the leave of the Court, a person cannot leave the country.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

6. It is significant to note here that the Passports Act, 1967 does not confer absolute power upon a citizen to obtain passport. Section 6(1) & (2) of the Act prescribe certain conditions/eventualities when the passport authority is required to turn down request to make an endorsement or issue passport which includes a condition when an applicant is an accused in a criminal case. Relevant extract of section 6(2) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:--

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or