Valid passport holders in pending criminal cases may travel abroad absent a specific restraint; personal appearance may be dispensed with when counsel can appear.
An accused who already holds a valid passport need not seek criminal court permission merely because a criminal case is pending, unless a separate restraint exists such as a bail condition or a lawful impounding order. Section 6(2)(f) and the 1993 notification operate at the stage of passport issuance, while Section 10 governs impounding or revocation of an existing passport; a valid passport holder's foreign travel is protected as part of personal liberty under Article 21. The article also notes that exemption from personal appearance under Section 317 CrPC is discretionary and may be granted where the accused undertakes to appear through counsel and personal attendance is not essential.
Issues: (i) Whether an accused in a pending criminal case who holds a valid passport must obtain permission from the criminal court under Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25/8/1993 read with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 to travel abroad. (ii) Whether the accused was entitled to exemption from personal appearance under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether an accused in a pending criminal case who holds a valid passport must obtain permission from the criminal court under Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25/8/1993 read with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 to travel abroad.
Analysis: Section 6(2)(f) governs refusal of issuance of a passport where criminal proceedings are pending, while Section 10 deals with impounding or revocation of an already issued passport. The notification issued under Section 22 operates only in the context of persons seeking a passport or endorsement covered by the statutory prohibition. A holder of a valid passport is protected by the right to travel abroad as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21, and mere pendency of a criminal case does not, by itself, bar foreign travel unless there is a specific legal restraint such as a bail condition or a valid impounding order.
Conclusion: An accused who already holds a valid passport need not obtain court permission merely because a criminal case is pending, unless a separate legal restriction applies.
Issue (ii): Whether the accused was entitled to exemption from personal appearance under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The power to dispense with personal attendance is discretionary and should be exercised liberally where the accused undertakes not to dispute identity, authorises counsel to appear, and his presence is not indispensable for the progress of the trial. The materials showed that the accused was employed abroad, had undertaken to cooperate through counsel, and sought exemption to avoid loss of employment. In such circumstances, the request for exemption merited consideration in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The accused was entitled to have the request for exemption from personal attendance considered on its merits, and the court below was not justified in insisting on prior passport permission as a condition precedent.
Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was not sustained in its approach to passport permission, and the application for exemption from personal appearance was directed to be considered afresh in the light of the legal position stated in the order.
Ratio Decidendi: A pending criminal case does not require an accused who already holds a valid passport to obtain court permission for foreign travel, and exemption from personal attendance may be granted where the accused undertakes to appear through counsel and his presence is not essential.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
