Prosecution of public servants under the Passport Act requires prior sanction from a competent authority; failure to obtain such sanction results in an abusive legal process.

ORDER

This Revision has been preferred as against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.14520 of 2024 in C.C.No.13168 of 2022 dated 21.03.2025 thereby dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner to discharge him.

2. The case of the prosecution is that some of the accused persons, who are Srilankan nationals approached a passport agent to apply for and procure Indian Passport. All the accused persons prepared bogus and fabricated documents and submitted the same on the online portal for applying for an Indian Passport. They also colluded with passport officials and police personnels and obtained Indian Passport by submitting fake and fabricated documents. The passport officials and police officials have granted incorrect Police Verification Report regarding the identity, address and nationality of the Srilankan Nationals and have issued Indian Passports. Hence a complaint was lodged. The respondent registered FIR in Crime No.1 of 2019 for offence under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC and 3(12)(1A)(a) and 121(1A)(b) and 12(2) of Passport Act. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.13168 of 2022. The petitioner is arrayed as 44^th accused and he filed a petition to discharge and it was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with the present revision.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner acted as investigation officer, therefore, he never abets anybody for issuance of passport. Further, under Section 15 of the Passport Act, the respondent ought to have obtained sanction to initiate prosecution as against the petitioner from the Central Government, but instead, the respondent obtained sanction from the Commissioner of Police, who is not a competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution. However, as per Section 16 of the Passport Act, when an act is done by a person in good faith, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Passport Act. He also relied upon the Official Memorandum issued by the Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India dated 26.10.2018 with regard to the new police verification process, accordingly, the new police verification report is confined only to the citizenship of the applicant. The police authorities are not required to check the identity of the applicant and they are also not required to verify the address of the applicant. There is no need for the police authority to meet the applicant and match their signature for the police verification report. Further, the petitioner, who is the Inspector of Police had deputed his Head Constable to complete police verification. The said verification report was jointly signed by the petitioner and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is the higher officer. However, the prosecution implicated the petitioner alone as an accused. The other officer, who signed the verification report is not implicated as an accused. Further, Section 15 of the Passport Act says about sanction to be obtained from the Central Government to prosecute under the Passport Act. The respondent had failed to obtain any sanction from the Central Government and the sanction was obtained from the Commissioner of Police, who is not the competent authority to issue sanction to prosecute the petitioner, therefore, the entire prosecution is an abuse of process of court. There is a legal bar against the institution of criminal proceedings under the Passport act. In support of this conte