JUDGMENT : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. 1. This judgment and order would dispose of both the Criminal Application Nos. 1695/2025 and 1696/2025 as the learned Advocate for the Applicant and Respondents agree that the issues and reliefs sought for are similar. 2. This Application is filed in Criminal Application/Petition No. 125/2025 with a prayer to issue passport to the Applicant (Original Accused) under relevant provisions of the PASSPORT ACT , 1967 (“the Act”) and Rules/Notification as applicable. 3. At the outset, the Applicant had filed a Criminal Revision Application No. 125/2024, assailing the judgment and order dated 07 May 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2024. By this order, the order dated 08 May 2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambajogai in Regular Criminal Case No. 47/2002 was confirmed, which convicted the Applicant for offence punishable under section 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (“IPC”) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 4. By an order dated 08 May 2024, this Court allowed the Application of this Applicant filed for suspension of sentence by enlarging the Applicant on bail. The Criminal Revision was admitted as stated by the Applicant in the Application. FACTUAL MATRIX:- 5. The backdrop in which the present Application is filed is that the Applicant desires to travel abroad to Saudi Arabia with his wife for Haj pilgrimage in June 2025. As stated in the Application, the Applicant had made a request to the Passport Authority for issuance of the passport, which was however turned down by the Authorities mainly on the ground of pending criminal proceedings/the Criminal Revision Application of the Applicant in Court. Thus, the Applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision Application for issuing directions to the Respondent No. 2 i.e., the Regional Passport Officer to issue the passport to the Applicant. SUBMISSIONS:- 6. Mr. Shermale, learned Advocate for the Applicant, who would first draw the Court’s attention to a notification of Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs G.S.R.570(E) dated 25 August 1993 which stipulates that citizens of India in respect of an offence alleged to have committed by them are pending before a Criminal Court in India can by producing orders from the concern Court permitting them to depart from India. This is under the provisions of sub-clause (f) of Section 6(2) of the Act subject to certain conditions, which are stipulated under the said section. He would accordingly submit that considering the clear provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act and the notification (supra) issued thereunder, there is no fatter on the passport authorities to issue the passport in a given case. Accordingly, the case of the Applicant is one where the passport authorities ought to follow the said statutory mandate and issue passport to the Applicant as request. 7. Mr. Bhosale, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, would at the outset, reply on an affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 of one Shruti Pande, Deputy Passport Officer, Pune affirmed on 26 June 2025. One of the principal ground raised in such affidavit is that the Applicant in both the Criminal Revision Application Nos. 1695/2025 and 1696/2025 are the same persons i.e., Shri. Abdul Kadar i.e. Applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 1695/2025. Thus, the Criminal Revision Applications filed in this Court are preferred in the most casual manner which does not justify any relief to this Applicants. The deponent in the said affidavit-in-reply has referred to and relied upon the provisions of Section 6(2)(e) and 6(2)(f) of the Act to submit that the former contemplates a situation where criminal proceedings in a criminal case are concluded whereas section 6(2)(f) deals with a situation of proceedings in respect of an offence which are pending in Criminal Courts in India. The deponent has also stated that the procedure for issuance of passport and that of re- issuance of passport are similar which was duly clarified by the Passport Officer who appeared in virtual mode during the hearing in Court. 8. To the above affidavit-in-reply, the Applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 1695/2025 has filed an additional affidavit dated 01 July 2025 to duly clarify that the Applicant had faced two separate criminal cases where the Applicant was convicted, pursuant to which the Appeals were filed which were also turned down, against which the present two separate Criminal Revision Application nos. 125/2024 and 113/2017 are filed and pending before this Court. It is in these Revision Applications/Petitions that the sentence of the Applicant has been suspended by order dated 08 May 2024. The said Criminal Revision proceedings are admitted and pending before this Court. 125/2024 and 113/2017 are filed and pending before this Court. It is in these Revision Applications/Petitions that the sentence of the Applicant has been suspended by order dated 08 May 2024. The said Criminal Revision proceedings are admitted and pending before this Court. In view thereof, there is no suppression as sought to be alleged by the Respondents as the Applicant has right from the beginning disclosed the true and correct facts before the Court. ANALYSIS:- 9. The Court has perused the record available with the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties who were heard at length. At the very outset, the Court in the present proceedings is concerned with the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, which reads thus: (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-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. It is not disputed that it is the above provision which will be applicable and attracted in the given factual scenario. It is not disputed that it is the above provision which will be applicable and attracted in the given factual scenario. At this juncture, the relevant notification (supra) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs being G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993 under the powers conferred by clause A of Section 22 of the PASSPORT ACT , 1967 and in supersession of the notification No. G.S.R. 298(E) dated 14 April 1976 is to be referred to, which reads thus: MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25 th August, 1993 G.S.R. 570(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14 th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject t the following conditions, namely :- (a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued - (i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year, (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the pass-port, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order. (b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a) (iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified; (c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renew-ed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the pass-port issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued. [No.VI|401|37|79] L.K. PONAPPA, Jt. Secy. (CPV) A perusal of the above which is issued under the canopy of section 6(2)(f) of the Act is clearly applicable in the given facts and circumstances which ought to be followed. 10. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Principal Seat) in Pilaji Sursinh Jadhavrao vs. Regional Passport Office Pune [Writ Petition No. 14116 of 2024 dated 14 January 2025] (wherein Advait M. Sethna, J was a member) where the Court had the occasion to analyze the scheme of the Act in relation to or with particular reference to Section 6(2)(f) in the context of re-issuance of a passport whereas noted above the procedure has clarified by the passport authority would also be similar, in such situations. If no period for issuance or re-issuance of passport for traveling abroad is specified then ordinarily it shall be issued for a period of one year. The Court on considering the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) and the applicable notification of the Central Government dated 25 August 1993 directed the Petitioner to make the application for re-issuance of passport to the concerned criminal Court for appropriate orders. 11. The above judgment makes it clear that in such cases of issuance or re-issuance of passport as may be applicable, it is the competent Criminal Court which is empowered to pass appropriate orders in this regard. 11. The above judgment makes it clear that in such cases of issuance or re-issuance of passport as may be applicable, it is the competent Criminal Court which is empowered to pass appropriate orders in this regard. Thus, in the given factual matrix it is this Court where the Criminal Revision Applications/Petitions are pending would be empowered to pass appropriate orders on the issuance of the passport of the Applicant. 12. In support of the above, this Court may also gainfully refer to a recent decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 11 June 2025 in Lalit Jagannath Mali vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others , Criminal Application No. 1472/2025 and other connected matters where the Court had the occasion to consider a similar issue of issuance of passport in the context of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act. The Court also interpreted the notification dated 25 August 1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India in this regard. In such backdrop, it allowed the application of the Petitioner and directed the passport authority to issue the passport initially for a period of five years. Thereafter, for each renewal the Applicant therein was directed to obtain permission from this Court. 13. In my considered view, the above judgments will apply in the factual complexion of the given case. There is no reason and/or justification in my opinion to depart therefrom. As far as the apprehension expressed by the learned Advocate for the Respondent is concerned inter alia with regard to suppression of the same Applicant making two separate applications, it is duly clarified in the additional affidavit of the Applicant dated 01 July 2025. To this there is no objection raised by the Respondents including the Passport Officer present through Video Conferencing in Court during the hearing on 03 July 2025. 14. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be apposite to advert to the Preamble to the PASSPORT ACT which refers to the issuance of passport and travel documents, to regulate departure from India of citizens of India and for other persons and for matter incidental or ancillary thereto. It is for such proper and effective regulation that various provisions have been enacted in the Act as also in the Rules framed under the Act. It is for such proper and effective regulation that various provisions have been enacted in the Act as also in the Rules framed under the Act. In such view of the matter, the present factual situation is to be tested on the anvil of section 6(2)(f) read with a notification of the Government of India dated 25 August 1993. In doing so, the Court is of a considered view that the Application of the present Applicant deserves to be allowed in the given facts and circumstances, by passing the following order: ORDER : a) Criminal Application Nos. 1695/2025 & 1696/2025 are allowed. b) The Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue a fresh passport to the Applicant within a period not later than six weeks from the date of this order being uploaded and made available to the parties. c) Such passport shall be issued to the Applicant initially for a period of five years. Thereafter, for each renewal permission shall be obtained from this Court, which shall be considered in accordance with law. d) Needless to state that if the Applicant after receipt of the passport desires to travel abroad, he shall be at liberty to prefer an appropriate application in this regard before the Court, which shall be considered on its own merit and in accordance with law. e) The Applications are Disposed of in the above terms.