Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 is inapplicable to post-conviction or post-acquittal proceedings.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. By this common order bunch of five Writ Petitions is disposed of as issue involved in all the petitions is identical. For the sake convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP No. 27167 of 2018.

2. The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to renew passport of the petitioner.

Brief Facts:

3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the adjudication of present case are that the petitioner was issued passport on 22.08.2005 which expired on 21.08.2015. An FIR dated 13.03.2008 under NDPS Act came to be registered against him. The trial court vide judgment dated 09.10.2013 convicted the petitioner under Section 15 of NDPS Act and sentenced to imprisonment of 10 years. The petitioner assailing judgment of conviction and order of sentence preferred an appeal CRA-S-3725-SB of 2013 before this Court which came to be admitted vide order dated 25.11.2013. The sentence of the petitioner came to be suspended vide order dated 14.02.2017 passed by this Court. The petitioner on 07.07.2017 moved an application seeking renewal of his passport. The petitioner was informed vide communication dated 17.07.2017 that there is an adverse police report. The application of the petitioner came to be closed. The petitioner, in the pending appeal, preferred an application before this Court, seeking direction to respondents to renew his passport which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2018. The application was dismissed observing that relief sought for by petitioner is civil in nature and in case of denial of his application, he has remedy to file civil writ petition.

Contention of the Petitioner:

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that his case is covered by clause (e) of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 (in short “1967 Act”). As per Clause (e) of Section 6(2) of the 1967 Act, passport authority may issue passport if an applicant is convicted five years prior to the date of application or sentence is less than two years. In case an applicant is convicted for sentence of less than two years or a period of five years from the date of conviction has passed away, rigour of clause (e) of Section 6(2) of the 1967 Act is not applicable. In the case of petitioner, five years period from the date of conviction expired on 8.10.2018, thus, petitioner is entitled to passport and respondents have wrongly rejected application of the petitioner.

Contention of the Respondents:

5. Mr. Maninder Singh, DAG, Punjab submits that petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 09.10.2013 passed by Special Court, Kapurthala. He was awarded sentence of 10 years, thus, adverse report was forwarded to passport authorities.

6. Ld. Counsels for the respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. Union of India and passport authorities inter alia would submit that petitioner has been convicted and awarded sentence of 10 years, thus, he cannot be issued passport. An appeal is continuation of original proceedings either civil or criminal. Admittedly, appeal of the petitioner is pending before this Court, thus, case of the petitioner though is not covered by Clause (e), yet, is squarely covered by (f) of Section 6(2) of the 1967 Act. The Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 22 of the Act has issued notification No. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 wherein it has been clarified that passport to an applicant against whom criminal proceedings are pending, can be issued only on the direction of Court. The said notification is applicable to pending appeals, thus, passport without consent of the Court cannot be issued.

In support of his contention, Learned State counsel placed reliance upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalawati Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1953) 1 SCC 86 and Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vinita Mehta and another (2022) 7 SCC 678 wherein it has been held that appeal is continuation of original proceeding.

7. I have heard arguments of