Pendency of appeal against conviction does not bar passport issuance under Section 6(2)(e) unless sentence is 2+ years for moral turpitude offence.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner desires to go abroad for employment purpose. He has submitted an application for issuance of passport as evident from Ext.P1 receipt. The petitioner was the 3^rd accused in S.C.No.168/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge II, Kasaragod, for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC . The Sessions Court, by judgment dated 25.10.2017 found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 . The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 326 . Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Crl.Appeal No.1042/2017 before this Court and the same is pending consideration.

2. The 2^nd respondent has orally informed him that he has to produce the acquittal order/final orders in the Crl.Appeal in order to process the application. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider his application for issuance of passport as evidenced by Ext.P1 without insisting for production of acquittal orders/final orders in Crl.Appeal No.1042/2017.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that insistence of the 2^nd respondent requiring the petitioner to produce the disposal orders in pending appeal is contrary to Section 6 (2)(e) of the Passports Act and the judicial precedents. of the deals with refusal of passports, travel documents, etc and sub-section 2 (f) thereof provides that 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 the ground 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( 2021 (5) KHC 727 ) has held that refusal of passport under (2)(e) applies only when the applicant has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years, and that mere pendency of appeal against conviction does not automatically disentitle a person from obtaining a passport. The Court held that the passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. This Court inDinshad v. State of Kerala ( 2023 (7) KHC 268 ), has held that (2) (e) of the only bars issuance of passport where the applicant has been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years within the five years preceding the application.

4. The learned DSGI, on instructions, submitted that the application of the petitioner evidenced by Ext.P1, will be processed, in accordance with law, with due regard to the provisions of law and the judicial precedents.

5. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to process the application of the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P1 and with file No.KO4066617739726, in terms of Section 6 (2)(e) of the Passports Act and the decisions referred above and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.