2017 (4) TMI 1589 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking return of passport - seeking permission to go abroad - HELD THAT - For deciding the issue at hand, Section 6(2)(f) will be relevant. A reading of the said provisions shows that the power of the Passport Authority to refuse issuance of passport under Section 5(2)(c) is governed by Section 6(2). Thus, for any of the reasons given in Clause (a) to (i) of Section 6(2), the Passport Authorities can refuse to issue a passport in exercise of power under Section 5(2)(c). The Parliament, in its wisdom, has conferred the aforesaid power, which is administrative in nature, on the Passport Authority. The Central Government has issued the following Notification dated 25.08.1993, for regulating the exercise of power by the Passport Authority under Section 6(2 (f). From a reading of Notification dated 25.08.1993, in the opinion of this Court, the expression 'concerned Court' will mean the Court before whom the person is facing the prosecution. In this case, had there not been a quash petition pending, the 'concerned Court' would be the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy before whom the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.21 of 2015. However, this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has admitted Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3533 of 2017 and has granted stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.21 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy. Under such circumstances, the expression 'concerned Court' in the context of the present case will mean the High Court and not the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy. Whether, this Court can permit the petitioner to go abroad? - HELD THAT - Since, this Court was prima facie satisfied that the transaction is purely civil in nature, this Court had admitted Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3533 of 2017 and had granted stay of the prosecution in C.C.No.21 of 2015. The police have filed a report before this Court, in which it is stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Trichy and has been doing furniture business. It is the case of the petitioner that to fulfil his business commitments, he is required to go to China for procuring furniture items as well as farm equipments. This Court is of the view that this is a fit case for which permission should be granted to the petitioner to go abroad. Under such circumstances, this Court permits the petitioner to depart from India and return on 30th May 2017. In view of the permission granted by this Court, the Passport authorities are directed to exempt the petitioner from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Passport issuance and criminal case pendency.
2. Legal provisions under the Passports Act, 1967.
3. Interpretation of relevant notifications.
4. Court's authority to permit international travel.
5. Case-specific analysis for granting permission.

Issue 1: Passport issuance and criminal case pendency
The petitioner faced a criminal trial in C.C.No.21 of 2015 and sought the return of his passport to travel to China for business purposes. The Passport Authorities had issued a show cause notice regarding the suppression of the criminal case information while obtaining a re-issued passport.

Issue 2: Legal provisions under the Passports Act, 1967
Sections 5(2) and 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 were crucial in deciding the petitioner's right to demand the issuance of a passport while facing criminal prosecution. The Act outlined grounds on which the Passport Authority could refuse to issue a passport, including pending criminal proceedings.

Issue 3: Interpretation of relevant notifications
A notification dated 25.08.1993 exempted citizens facing criminal charges from the operation of Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, subject to specific conditions. The court analyzed this notification to determine the petitioner's eligibility to retain his passport for international travel.

Issue 4: Court's authority to permit international travel
The court deliberated on whether to grant permission for the petitioner to travel abroad, considering the ongoing criminal case and the nature of the allegations against the accused parties. The court also assessed the impact of a pending quash petition on the definition of the 'concerned Court' in this context.

Issue 5: Case-specific analysis for granting permission
After evaluating the allegations in the charge sheet and the nature of the petitioner's business commitments, the court deemed it appropriate to grant permission for the petitioner to travel to China. The court directed the Passport Authorities to exempt the petitioner from relevant provisions of the Passports Act and allowed him to retain his passport until his return on a specified date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the petitioner's request for the return of his passport amidst a pending criminal case, emphasizing the court's authority to grant permission for international travel based on specific circumstances and legal provisions.