Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)Section 10 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
The Passports Act, 1967
Section 6 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs Central Bureau Of Investigation. on 27 September, 2021
(1) In Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of
Investigation1, the Apex Court 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
1
2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572
5
was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year.
Sumit Mehta vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 13 September, 2013
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.
(2) In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi2, the Apex Court at para
No.13 observed as herein under:
A.N. Jegannathan (Deceased), ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Represented By ... on 3 June, 2002
(3) In Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India3, the Apex Court held that
no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law
enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just
procedure. The relevant Para No.5 is extracted herein under: