TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to the missing passport. Curiously, on the very same day petitioner received the certificate as mentioned above, an FIR was registered before the Ernakulam Rural Police Station against the petitioner as F.I.R. No.1480 dated 20.11.2012, alleging offences under sections 406, 419 and 420 of IPC apart from sections 12(1)(a), (d) of Passports Act, 1967. It was alleged in the crime that petitioner had impersonated the defacto complainant and travelled with the defacto complainant's passport on 10.10.2012 from Sharjah, after taking possession of the passport of the complainant by committing a breach of trust. 3. Petitioner contends that he had applied for a fresh passport on 26.11.2012, but since, in the meanwhile, the aforenoted crime was registered, petitioner was stuck in Kerala and has not returned back to Sharja till date. It is pleaded that by Ext.P5 dated 08.12.2014 petitioner was informed from the passport office that due to the adverse report on the pendency of the crime, the file for issuance of passport was closed. 4. Almost five years after the closure of the file relating to his application for issuance of passport, petitioner applied afresh, for a new passport, cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp;(e) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (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) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (h) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (i) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 9. A bare reading of the above provision may indicate that the passport issuing authority shall be bound to reject the application for issuance of a passport if "criminal proceedings are pending" in any Court in India. 10. It is indubitable that the right to travel beyond the frontiers of our country is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and Others (AIR 1967 SC 1836) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another [(1978) 1 SCC 248]. (Satwant Singh's case is pre- Passport Act case while Maneka Gandhi's case is after the Passport Act). However comprehensive the said liberty be, it is still subject to 'procedure established by law'. Thus after the enactment of the Act in 1967, a law came into existence which enabled denial merely on the ground of existence of a criminal proceeding. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort 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 renewed 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 given an undertaking in writing to the passport 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." 13. Petitioner has produced an Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Government of India reiterating the terms of the notification extracted above. Since GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 is statutory in character, it has the force of law, unlike the Office Memorandum which can act only as a guide to the passport officers. 14. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision in Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 712). In the said case, relying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port Officer (2017 (2) KHC 484) this Court has held that Criminal Court is vested with ample powers to issue directions for providing passport for a specific period and the Magistrate can fix the period for travelling abroad or even issue directions to issue the passport for a specified period in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each and every case. In Muhammed v. State of Kerala and Another (2012 (4) KHC 553) it was held that the gravity of the offence alleged cannot be the sole basis to decline permission to go abroad for a short period and the Magistrate can allow the application to travel abroad by imposing adequate safeguards for securing the presence of accused for trial. In Akhilesh v. State of Kerala and Others (2021 (2) KHC 752) it was held that the Court where the case is presently pending has to decide whether the applicant is entitled to get a passport as well as the period for which he is entitled to hold the passport and the court has also to keep in mind the fact that pendency of a criminal case shall not stand in the way or cause hindrance to decide the future of an applicant. 18. On an appreciation of the aforesaid decisions, it can be seen that the ....