Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

To the shock of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 27.02.2024 to the petitioner wherein the petitioner had been informed that the competent authority decided to refuse passport services to the petitioner under Section 5 (2) (c) of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Section 6 (2)(f) of Passports Act, 1967 due to pendency of Cr.No. 125 of 2019 under Sections 326, 323, 294, 506, and 427 of IPC of PS Khammam Rural which is in PT vide C.C. No. 1632 of 2019, registered against petitioner. Further the petitioner was informed WP_7663_2024 SN,J vide the said impugned order dated 27.02.2024 of the 2nd respondent to submit acquittal order from the case or obtain permission to travel abroad from the same Court where the criminal case is still pending. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2024 of the 2nd respondent the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the 2nd respondent could be directed to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application File No. HY75C5075013323, dated 17.08.2023 in accordance to law. PERUSED THE RECORD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, respondents cannot refuse the issuance of passport facilities to the petitioner on the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner and the said action of the respondents is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967.

6. This Court opines that pendency of criminal cases cannot be a ground to deny passport facilities to an WP_7663_2024 SN,J individual or to hold a passport. Since petitioner's Right to personal liberty not only includes petitioner's right to travel abroad but also petitioner's right to hold or possess a passport.

7. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court reported in 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 in "Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation" had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6 (2)(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and also Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the WP_7663_2024 SN,J Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C.

12. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in "Ganni Bhaskara Rao Vs. Union of India and another" at paras 4, 5 and 6, observed as under:

"This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport.