ORDER : Petitioner is the 15th accused in C.C.No.2/2016, which has arisen from RC.14(A)/2013/CBI/ACB/Cochin pending before the Special Court, SPE/CBI-II, Ernakulam. Originally, the said RC was registered in the year 2013. During the registration of the RC and subsequent to it, the petitioner was in UAE. While the petitioner was remaining in UAE, he was arraigned as an accused in the RC on 24.12.2014, as is evident from Annexure - IV order of the court below. 2. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the registration of the aforesaid RC or his subsequent arraignment in the RC and therefore, he continued to be in UAE. While so, he wanted to get his Passport renewed, for which he voluntarily tendered his Passport at the office of the Consul General, Dubai. 3. After some time, Annexure - II show cause notice dated 30.03.2015 was issued to the petitioner in his residential address in Kerala, stating about his arraignment as an accused in the RC, and calling upon him to show cause as to why his Passport should not be impounded. The petitioner did not get Annexure - II, since it was addressed to his residential address in Kerala. Subsequently, through Annexure - III order dated 17.04.2015 his Passport was impounded by the Regional Passport officer, Kozhikode. 4. Since his Passport was impounded, he could not come to India and he had to remain in UAE. Since the petitioner wanted to come to India, to defend the actions against him, he applied for an Emergency Certificate on 04.06.2015. An Emergency Certificate was issued. The Emergency Certificate had to be taken to the Airport by the Protocol Officer. The petitioner, accompanied by the Protocol Officer, went to the Airport with his flight ticket on 29.06.2015 and a Boarding Pass was also issued. In the course of the immigration proceedings, the immigration authorities informed the petitioner as well as the Protocol Officer that the petitioner had a valid VISA to remain in UAE and as per the laws of UAE, the VISA had to be cancelled to enable the petitioner to travel to India on the strength of the Emergency Certificate. Even though the sponsor of the petitioner was willing to cancel the VISA of the petitioner, the sponsor was abroad at that point of time, and therefore, the petitioner had to wait for his arrival for getting his VISA cancelled. Even though the sponsor of the petitioner was willing to cancel the VISA of the petitioner, the sponsor was abroad at that point of time, and therefore, the petitioner had to wait for his arrival for getting his VISA cancelled. Consequently, the Protocol Officer returned with the Emergency Certificate. 5. In the mean time, the CBI contacted the INTERPOL for getting a Red Notice issued against the petitioner, and consequently a Red Notice was issued by specifying the offences of "criminal conspiracy and cheating" against the petitioner. The Red Notice was not issued for any other offence. On noticing the Red Notice, the authorities in UAE were duty bound to detain the petitioner for enabling the extradition process at the instance of the Requester Nation. 6. In the mean time, the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated before the court below under Section 82 Cr.P.C., and consequently a proclamation was issued. The petitioner wanted to come to India and therefore, he approached this Court through I.A.No.10037 of 2015 in Crl.M.C.4983 of 2013. Crl.M.C.4983/2013 was filed by him against the customs authorities challenging the look- out notice issued against him. This Court passed Annexure - V order dated 27.10.2015 whereby directing the CBI to request the INTERPOL to get the Red Notice against the petitioner deactivated for 15 days, for enabling the petitioner to obtain an Emergency Certificate for getting an exit from UAE, in order to come down to India. Consequently, the petitioner could come to India through the Emergency Certificate. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioner arrived at the Nedumbasserry Airport with prior intimation, at the dawn of 17.11.2015. Immediately, the petitioner was placed under arrest. 7. According to the petitioner, the proceedings for detention under COFEPOSA had been initiated against him even prior to that. On his arrest and the subsequent police custody, he was detained at the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram by way of detention under COFEPOSA. Subsequently, he was produced before the Advisory Board of COFEPOSA, which consists of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court. Finding that there was no sufficient cause for enabling his detention under COFEPOSA, he was ordered to be released and consequently he was released from COFEPOSA detention. He was enlarged on bail by this Court at the Crime stage, through Annexure - VI order dated 19.01.2016. Subsequently, final report was filed by the CBI before the court below. Finding that there was no sufficient cause for enabling his detention under COFEPOSA, he was ordered to be released and consequently he was released from COFEPOSA detention. He was enlarged on bail by this Court at the Crime stage, through Annexure - VI order dated 19.01.2016. Subsequently, final report was filed by the CBI before the court below. After the same, the petitioner obtained regular bail from the court below in this case. 8. According the petitioner, the court below is a designated court under the NIA Act also and therefore, it may take time for the court below to deal with this case, as priority has to be given to NIA cases. The petitioner wanted to travel abroad for which he wanted to procure a fresh Passport. As per Annexure - VII notification dated 25.08.1993, the petitioner, being an accused in a pending criminal case before a criminal court in India, has to obtain orders permitting the petitioner to depart from India, in order to obtain a fresh Passport. Consequently, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.502/2016 before the court below seeking such an order. Based on the aforesaid notification issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act, the court below through Annexure - VIII order has dismissed the said Crl.M.P. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the court below has not considered the entitlement of the petitioner to get such an order and instead of that the court below was carried away in finding fault with the petitioner in not preferring an appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act against the original order by which his Passport was impounded. 9. In paragraph 13 of Annexure - VIII, the court below has observed as follows: "Having not taken recourse to Section 11 of the Passports Act, the idea of the petitioner is to get an order having the effect of an appellate order under the cover of obtaining a No Objection Certificate from this Court. This malfide illegal stand of the petitioner cannot at all be entertained by me." Further, in paragraph 15, the court below has observed as follows: "Hence, the Passport Authority is competent to refuse the issuance of the Passport. This malfide illegal stand of the petitioner cannot at all be entertained by me." Further, in paragraph 15, the court below has observed as follows: "Hence, the Passport Authority is competent to refuse the issuance of the Passport. If so, if I am to issue a No Objection Certificate on this petition that will have the effect of directing the Passport Authority not to follow the legal provisions contained in Section 6 of the Passports Act. The same is not permissible". It is evident from the above that the court below has not handled the matter properly and the court below has not appreciated the legal aspects in making such observations. 10. Here, the petitioner has no case that he was not arraigned as an accused in the case at the time when his Passport was impounded. He was arraigned as an accused in the crime and it was on that ground, his Passport was impounded within the meaning of Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act. Had there been a case for the petitioner that his Passport was improperly impounded or illegally impounded, he could have filed an appeal within the meaning of Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967. Here, in this case, the petitioner has no case that he was not made an accused. He has not challenged the order by which his Passport was impounded. His Passport could be impounded under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, when he was arraigned as an accused in a case which was pending before a criminal court in India. Therefore, all the aforesaid observations made by the court below are out of place and unwarranted. 11. Still, for obtaining a fresh Passport, there is an impediment under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, when a case is pending before a court. It is in order to enable the persons who are categorised in Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, including the persons against whom such cases are pending to obtain a fresh Passport, the Central Government has issued Annexure - VII notification under Section 22 of the Passports Act. The said notification was issued in public interest. As per Section 22 of the Passports Act, where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, it may, issue a notification. The said notification was issued in public interest. As per Section 22 of the Passports Act, where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, it may, issue a notification. Over and above it, if the Central Government is of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, such a notification can be issued. So, the public interest noted in Section 22 of the Passports Act is with regard to the necessity of having such a notification issued and nothing more. As per the said notification, it is for the concerned criminal court to decide whether a No Objection Certificate within the meaning of the said notification can be issued or not. 12. Here, in this particular case, the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed this Crl.M.C on the ground that the petitioner is a hard core smuggler and he was the kingpin of a series of smuggling activities undertaken by A4, A6 and A7. It is specially alleged that A4 was a person who directly bribed the customs officials to have smooth smuggling activities. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, the petitioner was the kingpin who had involved in bribing customs officials and also in the smuggling activities. 13. Here in this particular case, the petitioner does not want to file an appeal against the order passed under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, since such an order could be passed merely on the ground that the petitioner is one of the accused in a pending criminal case before a criminal court in India. Therefore, no valid grounds exist to prefer an appeal under section 11 of the Passports Act, in this case. As per Annexure - VII notification, it is for the concerned criminal court to decide whether a No Objection Certificate within the meaning of the said notification can be issued or not. It was the said aspect, which the court below ought to have considered and decided. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Passports of A4, A6 and A7 were ordered to be released by the court below through order dated 03.08.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.410/2015. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, A6 and A7 were two women who were the carriers of gold, from whom the gold were seized. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Passports of A4, A6 and A7 were ordered to be released by the court below through order dated 03.08.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.410/2015. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, A6 and A7 were two women who were the carriers of gold, from whom the gold were seized. It is also pointed out that A4 was the person who had direct acquaintance with the customs officials, and who had allegedly bribed them. Those aspects are to be considered by the court below while disposing of the Crl.M.P. in accordance with law. When the court below has not considered any of such aspects in the matter, and when the court below was carried away in finding that the court below was not competent to entertain the matter in view of the non-filing of an appeal under Section 11, the entire order passed by the court below is liable to be quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure -VIII order passed by the court below is quashed. Crl.M.P. No.502/2016 of the court below is revived and the same is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above. The court below shall dispose of the Crl.M.P. afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.