Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kinjarapu Atchannaidu vs Union Of India on 23 September, 2021

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

              WRIT PETITION No.14327 OF 2021

ORDER:

Letter Ref. No:CNO/310837749/21, dated 09.04.2021

of the Regional Pass Port Officer, Visakhapatnam-2nd

respondent herein, is under challenge in the present Writ

Petition.

2. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior

Counsel, representing Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned

counsel for the petitioner on record and Sri N.Harinath,

learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for

respondents, apart from perusing the material available on

record.

3. Petitioner herein claims to be a permanent

resident of Nimmada Village, Kotabommali Mandal,

Srikakulam District. As the validity period of his passport

was coming to an end, vide application

No.VS073085608920, dated 02.11.2020, he applied for re-

issue of the passport. Vide questioned order, 2nd

respondent herein declined to accede to the request of the

petitioner on two grounds viz. pendency of criminal cases

against the petitioner and the condition imposed by this

court in paragraph No.38 of the order dated 28.08.2020 in

Criminal Petition No.3087 of 2020 to the effect that the

petitioner shall not leave the limits of the country without

prior permission of the trial court till disposal of the case

before the trial court.

4. Resisting the Writ Petition, a counter affidavit

has been filed by 2nd respondent.

5. While attacking ground No.1 in the impugned

order, mentioned supra, learned Senior Counsel Sri

Dammalapati Srinivas contends that the same cannot be

sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court in the

order dated 16.02.2021 in Writ Petition No.2000 of 2021.

In the said case, provisions of Section 6 (2) (f) of the

Passports Act, 1967 and Notification issued by the Ministry

of External Affairs, vide GSR No.570 (E), dated 25.8.1993

fell for consideration.

6. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to

the relevant provisions under the Passports Act, 1967.

Section 6 of the Act deals with refusal of passports, travel

documents, etc. According to Section 6 (2) (f) of the Act, the

passport authority is empowered to refuse to issue passport

or travel document on the ground of pendency of the

proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been

committed by the applicant before a criminal court in India.

7. This Court, in the order dated 16.02.2021 in

Writ Petition No.2000 of 2021, held that unless the Court

takes cognizance of the case, it cannot be construed as a

case pending in terms of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports

Act, 1967. In the said judgment, this Court also took into

account, the above-referred Notification vide GSR No.570

(E), dated 25.8.1993. By way of the said Notification, the

Union of India granted exemption to the citizens of India

against whom proceedings in respect of the offences alleged

to have been committed by them are pending before a

criminal court, from the operation of the provisions of the

Act, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein.

According to the said Notification, it is incumbent on the

part of the applicant to produce orders from the competent

court concerned.

8. According to the information available on record,

following are the particulars of the cases wherein the

petitioner is shown as accused.

S.No. Case particulars Status

1. Cr.No.44/2021 on the file of No Charge Sheet filed.

             Kotabommali Police Station     Investigation       is
             (A3)                           pending.
2.           Accused No.2 in Cr.No.4/       No Charge Sheet filed.
             RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 under         Investigation       is
             Section 13 (1) (c) (d) read    pending.
             with 13 (2) of Prevention of
             Corruption Act, 1988 and
             Section 13 (1) (a) of
             Prevention of Corruption
             Amendment       Act   2018,




             Section 409, 420, 120B IPC.

3. Cr.No.517/2019 on the file No Charge Sheet filed.

of Tadepalli police station Investigation is pending.

4. Cr.No.208/2019 on the file No Charge Sheet filed.

of Tekkali Police Station. Investigation is pending.

5. C.C.No.50/2018 before the Charge sheet filed.

             Special Court for trial of
             Criminal cases related to
             MPs and MLAs of the State
             of     Andhra        Pradesh,
             Vijayawada

9. It is very much evident from a perusal of the

said information that in respect of serial numbers 1 to 4

mentioned supra, no charge sheets have been filed so far

and the investigation is pending. But, only in respect of

one case i.e. C.C. No.50 of 2018 on the file of the Court of

the Special Judge for trial of Criminal Cases relating to the

MPs and MLAs of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada,

police authorities filed charge sheet. As per the law laid

down in the above-referred judgment of this Court in Writ

Petition No.2000 of 2021, ground No.1 mentioned in the

impugned order to the extent of cases mentioned at serial

numbers 1 to 4 alone, cannot be sustained in the eye of

law.

10. So far as C.C. No.50 of 2018, wherein police

have already filed charge sheet, necessarily, the petitioner

herein shall obtain permission of the concerned court in

accordance with the Notification issued by the Ministry of

External Affairs vide GSR No.570 (E), dated 25.8.1993 and

thereafter the petitioner can ask for re-issue of passport.

11. With regard ground No.2 in the impugned order,

mentioned supra, it is submitted by Sri Dammalapati

Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel that the said ground

assigned in the impugned order is neither sustainable nor

tenable in the eye of law. It is further submitted by the

learned Senior counsel that the restriction imposed by this

Court in the order dated 28.08.2020 in Criminal Petition

No.3087 of 2020 is only on travel to abroad and the same

cannot be made applicable for consideration of the

application of the petitioner for re-issue of the passport. In

this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the order of

this Court dated 28.08.2020 in Criminal Petition No.3087

of 2020. The said Criminal Petition came to be filed by the

petitioner herein, under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking his enlargement on

bail in crime No.04/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 of ACB, CIU, AP,

Vijayawada. This Court, vide order dated 28.08.2020,

allowed the said Criminal Petition, ordering enlargement of

the petitioner on bail in the said crime, subject to certain

conditions, and the operative portion of the said order at

paragraph No.38 reads as under:

"In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the above

crime, is ordered to be enlarged on bail on execution of self bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. On his release, the petitioner shall not leave the limits of the country without prior permission of the trial Court till the case is disposed of in the trial Court. The petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He must make himself available to the investigating officer as and when required to facilitate proper investigation. The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the said facts to the police officer to the Court."

It is very much clear from a reading of the abovesaid

order that this Court, in the above-referred Criminal

Petition, while granting bail in favour of the petitioner

herein, directed the petitioner not to leave the limits of the

country without prior permission of the trial court till the

disposal of the case before the trial court. As rightly

pointed by the learned Senior Counsel, the said restriction/

condition imposed by this court in the above-referred order,

cannot be construed as an embargo for consideration of the

application under Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, but

the petitioner herein shall necessarily adhere to the said

condition, if he goes abroad.