Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dealt with two criminal applications filed by the applicant, who was convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whose criminal revision applications were pending before the High Court. The applicant sought directions to the Regional Passport Officer to issue a passport to enable him to travel to Saudi Arabia for Haj pilgrimage with his wife in June 2025. The passport authority had refused issuance on the ground of pending criminal proceedings. The applicant relied on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 and Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993, which exempts citizens with pending criminal proceedings from the bar if they produce a court order permitting departure from India. The respondent passport authority, through an affidavit by Shruti Pande, Deputy Passport Officer, contended that the same applicant had filed two applications, which was allegedly a suppression and did not justify relief. It also distinguished between Section 6(2)(e) and 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. The applicant filed an additional affidavit clarifying that he had faced two separate criminal cases, leading to two separate criminal revision applications, both of which were pending and disclosed, and his sentences had been suspended by order dated 08 May 2024. The Court perused the record and considered Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, which mandates refusal of passport only on specified grounds, including pending criminal proceedings. The Court reproduced the text of Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993, which exempts citizens with pending proceedings if they produce a court order permitting departure. The Court referred to a Division Bench decision in Pilaji Sursinh Jadhavrao vs. Regional Passport Office Pune, where it was held that the competent criminal court where proceedings are pending is empowered to pass orders for issuance or re-issuance of passport. The Court also referred to a Coordinate Bench decision in Lalit Jagannath Mali vs. State of Maharashtra, which directed the passport authority to issue passport initially for five years and thereafter renewal with court permission. The Court held that these precedents applied to the present facts. It found no reason to depart from them. As to the suppression allegation, the Court accepted the additional affidavit clarifying two separate cases and noted no objection from respondents. The Court emphasized the Preamble to the Passport Act and the need for proper regulation. Ultimately, the Court held that the application deserved to be allowed, and the passport authority should issue the passport in accordance with the notification. The final operative directions, however, are not fully extracted in the provided judgment text.
Headnote
A) Passport Law - Issuance of Passport during Pendency of Criminal Proceedings - Passport authority shall refuse passport only on grounds specified under Section 6(2)(f) and no other ground; Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993 exempts persons with pending criminal proceedings if they produce court order permitting departure - Passport Act, 1967, Sections 5(2)(c), 6(2)(f), 22(a) - The Court held that the provision and notification apply to the applicant and the passport authority must follow the statutory mandate; it directed the passport authority to issue passport subject to the notification conditions, such as a period of one year if no period is specified in the court order (Paras 9-13). B) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction of Criminal Court to Permit Travel Abroad - Competent criminal court where proceedings are pending is empowered to pass appropriate orders for issuance or re-issuance of passport; procedure for issuance and re-issuance is similar - Passport Act, 1967, Section 6(2)(f) read with Notification dated 25 August 1993 - The Court relied on Division Bench judgment in Pilaji Sursinh Jadhavrao and Coordinate Bench judgment in Lalit Jagannath Mali; it concluded that the High Court where criminal revisions are pending has power to direct the passport authority to issue/re-issue passport (Paras 10-12). C) Criminal Law - Suppression of Facts in Multiple Applications - Filing of two applications by same person did not amount to suppression because two separate criminal cases and revisions were disclosed; no objection raised by respondents - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A (underlying offence) - The Court rejected the respondent's apprehension regarding same applicant making two applications; additional affidavit clarified that applicant had two separate convictions and pending revisions, and no objection was raised by respondent including passport officer (Paras 8,13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to issuance of passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 read with Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993 when criminal revision proceedings are pending; whether the High Court where criminal revision is pending can direct the passport authority to issue passport and on what terms; whether filing of two applications by same person amounts to suppression.
Final Decision
The Court held that Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967 read with Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993 applies and that the competent criminal court where proceedings are pending is empowered to pass orders for issuance of passport. The Court found no suppression by the applicant and directed the passport authority to issue passport in accordance with the notification. The final operative directions are not fully extracted in the provided judgment text.
Law Points
- Passport authority shall refuse passport only on grounds specified under Section 6(2)(f) and no other ground
- Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 exempts persons with pending criminal proceedings upon production of court order
- Competent criminal court where proceedings are pending is empowered to direct issuance or re-issuance of passport
- Procedure for issuance and re-issuance is similar
- No suppression if applicant discloses separate criminal cases and pending revisions
