Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Partha Sarathi Banjerjee vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 July, 2014
Author: R.K. Bag
Bench: R.K. Bag
[Reportable]
Form No. J(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Present :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Bag
CRR 487 of 2014
Partha Sarathi Banjerjee
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal
For the petitioner :Mr. Debashis Banerjee
Mr. Nilotpal Datta
For the State : Mr. Manjit Singh ...Ld. Public Prosecutor
Mr. Amarta Ghosh
Heard On: 18.07.2014
Judgment On: 18.07.2014
R.K. Bag, J.
This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order no. 44 dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. XXXVI/December-2003, by which learned Judge of the court below refused to grant permission to the petitioner for obtaining passport in order to go abroad.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the present petitioner is facing trial before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Medinipur along with 27 co-accused persons on the allegation of committing offences under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 35 of the Arms Act.
3. Mr. Debashis Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Passport Authority may refuse to grant passport if any criminal case is pending against the applicant before a Criminal Court, unless the Presiding Officer of the said Criminal Court grants permission in favour of the applicant for obtaining passport as laid down in Notification No. G.S.R. 570 (E) (25- August- 93) Citizens of India Exempted from the Provision of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967. Mr. Banerjee also contends that the petitioner is working as a consultant with International Water Management Institute from the year 2005 having its Headquarters at Sri Lanka and Branch Office at New Delhi and the petitioner will have to go to abroad in connection with the research work.
4. Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party/State submits that Learned Judge of the court below should have called for a report from the Investigating Officer of the case to ascertain whether the petitioner is in genuine and urgent need to go abroad in connection with the research work as a consultant of International Water Management Institute before deciding the issue of granting permission to the petitioner to obtain passport for going abroad.
5. On perusal of the impugned order challenged in this criminal revision, I find that the learned Judge of the court below has formed the opinion for refusal to grant permission to the petitioner for obtaining passport on two grounds: first, there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting "No Objection Certificate" in favour of the petitioner for obtaining passport and secondly, there is possibility that the petitioner may abscond if he goes abroad after obtaining passport. In this regard I would like to point out that it is entirely the discretion of the learned Judge of the trial court to grant or refuse permission to the petitioner for the purpose of obtaining passport on consideration of the nature and gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioner, conduct and antecedent of the petitioner and the genuine need of the petitioner to go abroad in connection with research work of International Water Management Institute. It is also relevant to record that the present petitioner did not make any application for obtaining passport in order to go abroad during last nine years of his assignment with the International Water Management Institute i.e. from the year 2005 to the year 2014. However, in view of the Notification No. G.S.R. 570 (E) (25- August- 93) Citizens of India Exempted from the Provision of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India Vide Notification No. G.S.R. 298 (E) dated 14th April, 1976, the Presiding Officer of the Criminal Court has the authority to grant permission to any accused person to obtain passport for going abroad.
6. In view of my above observation, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court with liberty to pass fresh order after hearing submission of both sides. The petitioner is directed to produce the copy of the concerned Notification of the External Affairs Ministry before the Trial Court with copy to the other side for the purpose of hearing in order to pass fresh order by learned Judge of the court below.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order no. 44 dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. XXXVI/December- 2003 is set aside. Learned Judge of the Trial Court is directed to pass fresh order on the issue of grant or refusal of permission to the petitioner to obtain passport in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgement after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. With this observation, the criminal revision is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent down to learned court below for favour of information and necessary action.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
( R. K. Bag, J )