Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 918 (AP)

Danvath Balaji Naik v. Union of India

2022-09-16

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2022
ORDER : The petitioner is the holder of a passport bearing No.L4514956 which is in continuation of his earlier passport bearing J5078902. 2. A criminal case had been filed against the petitioner under Section 498A of IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was registered as crime No.84 of 2019 in the Disha Police Station, Vijayawada. After the registration of the said crime, the 3rd respondent is said to have seized the passport of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent for impounding the same on account of the pending criminal case against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said action has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 4. Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said action of impounding the passport is not in accordance with the Passport Act. He would point to the section 10 of the Passport Act to contend that none of the conditions set out in section 10 are applicable to the case of the petitioner and as such the passport of the petitioner cannot be impounded. He specifically point to Section 10 (3) (e) which stipulates that the passport of the petitioner can be impounded if he is an accused in a case pending before a court. He would further submit that in view of the various Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, The Hon’ble High Court of Madras and this Court, it is now settled law that the petitioner would be treated as a person who is facing a criminal case in a Court only when the said Court takes cognizance of the case. He submits that no such cognizance has been taken and as such the provisions of Section 10 (3) (e) would not be applicable. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Home has placed written instructions obtained from the 3rd respondent dated 12.09.2022 in these written instructions, the 3rd respondent specifically states that a charge sheet has been filed before the 2nd Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada on 25.02.2022 and cognizance of the case has not yet been taken by the Learned Magistrate. 6. The issue and renewal of passports is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 10(3) (e), extracted below, is relevant for this purpose. 6. The issue and renewal of passports is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 10(3) (e), extracted below, is relevant for this purpose. (3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document,— (a) if the passport authority is satisfied that the holder of the passport or travel document is in wrongful possession thereof; (b) If the passport or travel document was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the passport or travel document or any other person on his behalf: 5 [Provided that if the holder of such passport obtains another passport, the passport authority shall also impound or cause to be impounded or revoke such other passport.] 1[Provided that if the holder of such passport obtains another passport, the passport authority shall also impound or cause to be impounded or revoke such other passport. (c) if the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public; (d) if the holder of the passport or travel document has, at any time after the issue of the passport or travel document, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India; (f) if any of the conditions of the passport or travel document has been contravened; (g) if the holder of the passport or travel document has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the same; (h) if it is brought to the notice of the passport authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the passport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made. The grounds on which the passport of the petitioner can be impounded could at best fall within Section10 (3) (e) of the Passport Act. This provision is, in Pari materia, the same as Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act. 7. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court. 8. 8. The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f). 9. In view of the above Principle of law, it must be held that the petitioner is not yet facing any criminal case before a Court and as such the provisions of Section 10 (3) (e) would not be applicable to him. In the absence of any such provision being applicable to the petitioner, the passport of the petitioner cannot be impounded. 10. In the circumstances, this Writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to return the passport of the petitioner to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. However, this order shall not preclude the 3rd respondent or any other investigative agency from taking steps to ensure the presence of the petitioner for the trial in the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.