Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 948 (RAJ)

Ajay Sharma v. State

2023-04-27

FARJAND ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Farjand Ali, J.) : The matter comes up on an application for issuance/renewal of the passport. 2. The instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr. P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 50/2017 (45/2011) (CIS No. 210/2014) as well as against the judgment dated 04.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case No. 647/2010 and the appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed. The petitioner Ajay Sharma was convicted and sentenced as under:— Conviction for offence under Sections Sentences Default Sentences 323 I.P.C. 6 months SI with fine of Rs. 500/- 7 days S.I. 377 I.P.C. 3 years S.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- 15 days S.I. 498 I.P.C. 3 years S.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- 10 days S.I. All substantive sentences awarded to the accused were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for business purpose petitioner has to travel abroad thus, he has preferred an application for issuance/renewal of his passport but due to pendency of this petition, his prayer has been declined by the passport authorities. He further submitted that the revision petition has already been admitted in the year 2018, it is a case of marital strife and the parties are living separately since long thus, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is an impediment for the petitioner to get a passport may not be impediment for the petitioner to get renewal of the passport. Lastly he prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the judgments passed by the Courts below be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate-cum- Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner but does not dispute the fact that this is purely a case of marital strife between husband and wife and is pending since 2018. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the application for issuance/renewal of passport and perused the material available on record. 6. A careful scanning of the material available on record reflecting that this is a case of marital strife and Rs. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the application for issuance/renewal of passport and perused the material available on record. 6. A careful scanning of the material available on record reflecting that this is a case of marital strife and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation has already paid by the petitioner to Smt. Deeksha and looking to the fact that petitioner is on bail during pendency of trial and appeal and he has to travel abroad for his business purpose, this Court feels that it would not be appropriate to deprive the petitioner from obtaining a passport on account of long lasting discord with, his wife. Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 makes the provision regarding issuance/renewal of passport which is reproduced as under:— 6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. Etc.— (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— (a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country; (d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India; (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, 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; (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that 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. 7. A bare perusal of the Clause (2)(e) to Section 6 of the Passport Act makes it abundantly clear that the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue/renew the passport or approval document for visiting any foreign country, if the applicant at any time during the five years immediately preceding the date of his application, has been convicted by the Courts in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years. 8. 8. In the case at hand, first of all, the application was moved in the Year 2022 and the judgment of conviction was passed by the learned trial Court way back in the Year 2011 so the application was not filed within five years from the date of passing the order of conviction; secondly, it was a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The revision is pending before this Court and there seems no likelihood of its hearing in near future thus, in the considered view of this Court, depriving a person from getting a passport forever would not be a justifiable action in a dispute of like nature and thus, this Court feels it persuaded to direct the Passport Authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance/renewal of the passport leaving aside the pendency of criminal proceeding, however, he should be found otherwise eligible, to get a passport. 9. Accordingly, the application for issuance/renewal of Passport is allowed. However, it is made clear that the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner in the year 2011 and the pendency of the instant criminal revision petition shall not be taken as an impediment for consideration of the application for issuance/renewal of the passport. The application for issuance/renewal shall be processed, if he is otherwise eligible.