Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for renewal of passport vide File No. HY2076099080523 dated 27.12.2023 but however the petitioner's case had not been considered instead the petitioner received a communication SN, J letter dated 04.01.2024 wherein a reference is made with regard to C.C. No. 5395 of 2021 registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 337 of IPC at X AMM Court, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and the petitioner had been informed vide the said letter dated 04.01.2024 that the competent Authority decided to refuse passport services to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground for denial of renewal of passport. Petitioner specifically contends that petitioner needs to travel abroad for work purpose but however, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 04.01.2024 is insisting the petitioner to furnish acquittal order or permission to travel abroad from the Court. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD.

"This Court after hearing both the learned SN, J 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 I was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport.

This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction and makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post- conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.

Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court."

10. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu case (cited supra) 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 SN, J 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 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.

13. This Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner herein did not seek a prayer to set aside the order dated 04.01.2024 of the 3rd respondent informing the petitioner that the competent Authority decided to refuse passport services to the petitioner and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider the order dated 04.01.2024 of the 3rd respondent and pass SN, J appropriate orders on petitioner's application vide File No. HY2076099080523 dated 27.12.2023 seeking renewal of passport for a period of 10 years in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in the various judgments referred to and extracted above and pass appropriate orders within three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order subject to the following conditions: