9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t' 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase pending against him at the time of seeking re-issuance. However, the petitioner was advised to surrender the passport pursuant to which, he surrendered the passport bearing No.Z2971459 to the Passport Authorities on 10.09.2015. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to the Passport Authorities to return his passport to him as he wants to go to China on business assignment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The admitted fact is that the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.21 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Trichy. It is also a fact that the petitioner has filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3533 of 2017, challenging the criminal prosecution in C.C.No.21 of 2015 and this Court has admitted the quash application and in Crl. M.P.(MD).No.2642 of 2017, has granted interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.21 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Trichy. At this juncture, it may be relevant to discuss the legal position with regard to the right of a person facing criminal prosecution to demand issuance of passport. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such Court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; (i)) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. 4. 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): In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here 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. 6. Now, the next question that falls for consideration is whether, this Court can permit the petitioner to go abroad. This decision has to be taken on a case to case basis and there cannot be any cut and paste formula. To decide the desirability of permitting this petitioner to go abroad, it may be necessary for this Court to briefly analyse the allegations in the charge sheet in C.C.No.21 of 2015. In the charge sheet, it is alleged by the prosecution that M.A.Alaudeen (A1) and his wife Paulgeesh @ Bhuveneshwari (A2) were running a film Company, Haji Cine Creation and had received money from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
