Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: REFUSAL OF PASSPORT in Mirza Muzzafar Ali Baig vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2024Matching Fragments
"2. Under the existing provisions and after careful examination of your case, it has been decided by the Competent authority to refuse passport services to you under Section 5 (2)(C) of the Passports Act, 1967, to be read with Section 6 (2)
(f) in view of your pending Court case under in Cr.No. 82/2019, under Sections 448, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Shahalibanda Police Station, vide C.C. No. 10508/2019".
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for passport on 14.12.2018 and obtained passport which is valid up to 13.12.2028 and the present application is pertaining to correction in the name of the petitioner as Mirza Muzzaffar Ali Baig in place of Mirza Muzaffer Ali Baig which SN, J however had not been considered in accordance with law by the Passport Authority and instead the Passport Authority informed the petitioner that the competent authority decided to refuse passport services to the petitioner on the ground of Crime No. 82 of 2019 under Sections 448, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Shahalibanda Police Station registered against the petitioner.
5. It is also relevant to note that the Respondents cannot refuse passport services 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 and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
6. It is also 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 SN, J 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 Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse passport, services, or refuse to renew 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.
"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 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 SN, J 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.
12. This Court opines that pendency of criminal offence is not a ground to refuse passport services to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the view taken by the Apex Court and other High Courts in the various judgments referred to and extracted above and duly considering the fact that the petitioner was issued passport on 14.12.2018 by the passport authority which is valid till 13.12.2028 and the present application dated 20.09.2021 only sought correction of the name of the petitioner as Mirza Muzzafar Ali Baig in place of Mirza Muzaffer Ali Baig the plea taken by the 2nd respondent at para 2 of the letter dated 11.10.2021 (referred to and extracted above) is untenable and unwarranted, therefore, the 2nd respondent herein is directed to consider the said application of the petitioner dated 20.09.2021 in accordance to law within one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order duly taking into consideration the view taken by the Apex Court in various judgments referred to and extracted above and pass appropriate orders on the application dated 20.09.2021 of the petitioner seeking issuance of passport No.HY1073585905121 duly correcting the name of the petitioner as "Mirza Muzzafar Ali Baig" in place of 'Mirza Muzaffer Ali SN, J Baig' duly considering the fact as borne on record that petitioner was issued passport on 14.12.2018 by the Passport Authority which is valid till 13.12.2028.