Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Mihani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010
M.Cr. C. No. 4621 of 2010
17.5.2010
Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Arvind Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This application under section 482 of th Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 30th December, 2009 passed by JMFC, Itarsi, district Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No. 126/08, whereby learned trial Court rejected the application for a direction to the Passport Authority to renew the passport of the applicant.
2. The applicant is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 247, 332, 186, IPC.
3. The applicant is a businessman by profession and is also running the business of cable network in the name and style of Mohani Cable Network in Itarsi, Distt. Hoshangabad. He is also having agency of Pepsi Cold Drinks. The applicant was having passport No.3395951 and it has expired on 5/9/2007.
4. It is submitted that a workshop was organized at Bangkok by Central India Digital Network Pvt.Limited, Bhopal from 27/12/2009 till 2/1/2010 with an intention to improve the quality of work. The applicant was interested in joining the workshop and, therefore, he applied for permission to get his passport renewed. Hence, he filed an application for grant of permission (Annexure- P/2).
5. The trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that while granting bail, no restriction on the movement of the applicant was imposed, therefore, there is no question for grant of permission. It is submitted that although though the workshop has already been held and the applicant could not attend the workshop but now in near future, a similar tour is going to be sponsored by the companies and in order to avail the facility, the applicant would require his passport. It is further submitted that passport authority may refuse to grant or renew the passport if any criminal case is pending against the holder of the passport. In order to come out of this difficulty, the holder of passport is required to obtain permission from the Court.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention to Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 and submitted that the passport authority may refuse to grant or renew the passport if any criminal case is pending against the holder of the passport. He further submits that due to pendency of criminal case for offences punishable under sections 147, 332 and 186 of IPC, the learned trial Court refused to issue direction to renew the passport and rejected the application by the impugned order. It is submitted that the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that while granting bail, no restriction on movement of the applicant was imposed or any condition is imposed by the trial Court while granting bail to the applicant, therefore, there is no question of granting any permission. He further submits that as and when the applicant will go out of country he will obtain prior permission from the concerned trial Court. He lastly submits that in identical circumstances another Court allowed the application and directed for renewal of passport vide order dated 22.12.2009 (Annex.P-4) in Criminal Case No.1092/2005 and submitted that learned JMFC rejected the application only on the ground that the applicant did not disclose this fact in his application that any condition has been imposed by the trial Court.
7. Considering the totality of the facts and in view of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 impugned order is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the application in accordance with the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and pass appropriate order for granting permission to the concerned authority for renewal of passport, in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid, petition is allowed and disposed of.
(P.K.JAISWAL) JUDGE