Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 253 (MP)

Kishore Singh v. State of M. P.

2018-03-05

VIVEK RUSIA

body2018
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that the respondents are unnecessary delaying in issuance of passport hence they may be directed to issue the passport to him. 2. The petitioner who is resident of District Jhabua, has applied for issuance of passport before the Passport Seva Kendra, Bhopal. After submission of the application, the Passport Authority conducted an enquiry and also obtained the information from the police that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, therefore, they have withheld the application, hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of respondents is in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not been convicted in any of the criminal cases and only two criminal cases are pending in which the charges are very minor and the cases are triable by the Magistrate. As many as 7 criminal cases were pending against him and out of which, in five criminal cases, he has been acquitted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and as per the provisions of Passports Act, the passport cannot be granted to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has produced copy of the judgment of this Court in Nirmal Kumar Jain v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 5368/2017) decided on 9.1.2018, in which, this Court has upheld the action of the Passport Authority by which he denied issuance of the passport due to pendency of criminal cases. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has produced copy of the judgment of this Court in Nirmal Kumar Jain v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 5368/2017) decided on 9.1.2018, in which, this Court has upheld the action of the Passport Authority by which he denied issuance of the passport due to pendency of criminal cases. Relevant part of the order is reproduced below : "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 puts an embargo on issuance of Passport in case of pending of the criminal proceedings in the Court by providing that - "6(2)- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel documents for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other grounds, namely - (a) ----- (b) ----- (c) ----- (d) ----- (e) ----- (f) the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India." Undisputedly, the petitioner has been convicted by the judgment dated 31.8.2016 by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption in Spl. Case No. 4/2011 under the provisions of section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo 2 years imprisonment with fine and default imprisonment. Against this, Criminal Appeal No. 1332/2016 is pending in which by order dated 28.9.2016 the petitioner has been granted suspension of sentence. The notification dated 25.8.1993 grants exemption from the provisions of section 6(2)(f) of the Act in a case of a citizen against whom proceedings in respect of offence alleged to have been committed by him are pending before the criminal Court in India and who produces order from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that any such order has been passed by the concerned Court, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of the notification dated 25.8.1993. Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed." 6. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that any such order has been passed by the concerned Court, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of the notification dated 25.8.1993. Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed." 6. There is specific bar under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act that the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India. The provision is mandatory in nature. Therefore, this Court cannot direct the Passport Authority to issue passport to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this petition having no merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.