Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioners applied for passport. While the passport officer has accepted the application of the petitioner no.2 and issued the passport in her favour, issuance of passport in favour of the petitioner no.1 is on the verge of being refused on the ground that he suppressed a material information in his application for passport. Although the petitioner no.1 is implicated in Mathurapur Police Station case no. 43 of 1998 dated May 29, 1998 and in connection therewith, charge sheet being C.S. 70 dated October 19, 1998 under sections 147/148/149/323/324/325/506 of the Indian Penal Code has been submitted before the learned magistrate, the petitioner did not disclose such fact in his application.

Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereafter the 'Act') contains provisions empowering the passport officer to refuse an application for passport. In terms of clause (f) of sub section (2) of section 6, a passport may be refused on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. Mr. Panda, learned advocate for the passport officer has referred to such provision while supporting his action of contemplating to refuse passport in favour of the petitioner no.1.

In view of the decision of another learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1994(2) CLJ 165 (In Re:

Basudev Mitra), a criminal proceeding is said to be pending against an accused once the learned magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. The contemplation of the passport officer to refuse passport to the petitioner no.1 referring to section 6(2)(f) of the Act, therefore, appears to be unexceptionable.
There is one other reason why the petitioner no.1 is not entitled to discretionary relief from the Court. In his application for passport, he ought to have disclosed that he is an accused in a criminal case. Not being fair and frank, he cannot expect discretionary jurisdiction to be exercised in his favour.