SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2165

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Charanjeet Singh @ Labhu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2014
Decided On : 09-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S.K. Verma, for the Appellant
Mr. Sudhir Tak, PP, Mr. Rakesh Matoria, for the Respondent.

The Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of a passport solely based on the pendency of a criminal appeal, as per Section 6.2 (f) of the Passport Act, 1967.

Headnote:

Passport Renewal - Criminal Appeal - The court directed the Passport Authority to renew the appellant's passport without considering the pendency of the criminal appeal, in accordance with the Passport Act, 1967.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought permission for passport renewal while a criminal appeal was pending against his conviction for various offenses. The Passport Authority refused renewal citing the pendency of the criminal appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the Passport Authority to renew the appellant's passport without considering the pendency of the criminal appeal, in accordance with the Passport Act, 1967.

Issues: Renewal of passport during pendency of criminal appeal

Ratio Decidendi: The Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of a passport solely based on the pendency of a criminal appeal, as per Section 6.2 (f) of the Passport Act, 1967.

Final Decision: The court directed the Passport Authority to renew the appellant's passport without considering the pendency of the criminal appeal, subject to other conditions being fulfilled.

ORDER

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has moved this application (IA No.01/22) seeking permission of this Court for issuance of passport/passport renewal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No(s).1342/2017) decided on 27.09.2021, which reads as follows:

'The applicant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B,420, 468, 471, 477 A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the High Court. However, the sentence was reduced to a period of one year.

The application for exemption from surrendering filed by the applicant was allowed. Leave was granted in the criminal appeal filed by the applicant on 12.07.2017. The appeal is pending consideration.

In the meanwhile, the applicant has filed this application for a direction to the respondent to give no objection for renewal of his passport which expired on 12.11.2017. The applicant has contended that the application filed by him for renewal of passport was not considered. In spite of his repeated efforts, including filing of an application under the Right to Information Act, he was not informed the reason for non renewal of his passport. It is averred in the application filed for direction that the application was orally informed that the renewal of the passport was not being done due to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this Court.

Mr. J.K.Sud, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent oppose the application and submitted that renewal of passport can be only after application obtains permission from the concerned trial court. He referred to Section 6.2 of the Passport Act, 1967 and argued that the passport authority has the power to refuse issuance of the passport in view of the pendency of the criminal appeal filed by him. He submitted that sub-Section 6.2 (e) and (f) of the Passport Act, 1967 would be applicable to this case and the applicant is not entitled to seek renewal passport without obtaining permission from the trial court.

Section 6.2 of the Passports Act, 1967 reads as follows:

x x x x x x x x x x

(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 a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top