TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cr.P.C (Section was wrongly quoted as S. 205 of Cr.P.C.) to dispense with his personal attendance and to conduct the trial in his absence. The reason shown was that he was employed abroad and he wanted to go back to rejoin his employment. The application was dismissed by the Court below as per the impugned order holding that the petitioner has to file an application under the provisions of the Passports Act seeking permission to depart from India. The said order is under challenge in this Crl. M.C. 3. I have heard Sri. Thareeq Anver, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Thareeq Anver submitted that the petitioner is in possession of a valid passport and necessary travel document to leave India and, as such, there is no requirement to seek permission under the provisions of the Passports Act. The learned counsel further submitted that Annexure A1 affidavit would show that the petitioner has undertaken that he will not dispute his identity and further he has executed vakalath in favour of his counsel to conduct case on his behalf. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Court in India and who produces orders from the Court concerned, permitting them to depart from India from the operations of the provisions of Clause (f) of Subsection (2) of S. 6 of the said Act subject to the conditions enumerated therein. 8. S. 6 deals with the refusal of issuance of passport whereas S. 10 deals with impounding of the passport already issued. As per S. 6(2)(f), the passport issuing authority shall be bound to reject the application for passport if criminal proceedings are pending in any Court in India whereas u/s. 10(3) (e) of the Act, the passport authority may impound or revoke the passport or travel document 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. If the passport has already been issued, its compounding or revocation is not automatic even if a crime is pending against the passport holder. It is discretionary on the part of the passport authority. The petitioner's passport had not been impounded in accordance with law and, hence, he is the holder of a valid passport. 9. Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of S. 6 of the Act read with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said condition. Thus, the Court below went wrong in insisting the petitioner to obtain an order under the Passports Act to go abroad. 11. S. 317(1) of Cr.P.C. empowers the Judge or Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and to proceed with trial in his absence. Ordinarily the court should be generous and liberal under Ss. 205 and 317 of Cr.P.C and grant exemption to the accused from personal appearance unless the presence is imperatively needed or becomes indispensable. The Apex Court in Bhaskar Industries Limited Vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited [2001 (3) KLT 307 (SC)] held that, while dispensing with the personal appearance of the accused, the accused shall give an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court, that he would not dispute his identity and the counsel on his behalf would be present in court and that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. True, the above principles were laid down by the Apex Court while dealing with a summons case. However, in Puneet Dalmia v. C.B.I. (AIR 2020 SC 214), the Apex Court held that the principles of grant of exemption as observed in Bhaskar (supra) can be made applicable to warrant cases a....