Bombay High Court
Rajesh Champaklal Mehta vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 November, 2022
Bench: Amit Borkar
3-REVN-217-2015-I-A-937-2022(1).odt
Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2015
WITH
CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.937 OF 2022
Rajesh Champaklal Mehta ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondent
Mr. Marmik Shah for the applicant.
Mr. A.R. Patil APP for the State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 9, 2022
P.C.:
1. The applicant is original accused who has been convicted for
offense under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. On 13th June, 2006, F.I.R. bearing No.164 of 2006 was
registered against the applicant for offense punishable under
Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court convicted
the applicant for offense punishable under Section 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 20th July, 2013. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrates 49th Court has directed the applicant to
undergo sentence of (1) one year rigorous imprisonment and to
pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand Only) . The
appeal filed against the said Judgment had been dismissed by the
learned Sessions Judge. The applicant, therefore, filed present
Criminal Revision Application which is pending before this Court.
3-REVN-217-2015-I-A-937-2022(1).odt
3. This court by order dated 5th May, 2015 suspended the
sentence of the applicant on furnishing cash deposit of Rs.20,000/-
(Twenty Thousand Only). The passport earlier issued to the
applicant expired on 6th May, 2018. Therefore applicant applied for
renewal of passport in the year 2021.
4. The applicant has stated that during the period of vaildity
earlier passport, he had traveled to Singapore & Malaysia in the
year 2010 and to South Africa in the year 2012 without violating
any conditions imposed upon him by the trial Court.
5. Applicant's daughter is residing at United States of America
and the applicant intends to visit his daughter. According to the
applicant, concerned Police Station, i.e., Pant Nagar Police Station
did not issue police clearance for renewal of passport and,
therefore, the applicant has filed present application seeking
direction to the concerned authorities for issuance of clearance for
renewal of passport.
6. This point is no longer res integra in view of the Judgment of
Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1343 of 2017 in the case of
Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. CBI dated 27th September
2021. The apex Court, after considering the provisions of the
Passports Act, 1967, has observed that the refusal of passport can
only be in case where the applicant is convicted during the period
of five (5) years immediately preceding the date of application for
offence involving moral turpitude and sentence to undergo
imprisonment for not less than two (2) years. In the facts of the
present case, considering the nature of offence for which the
3-REVN-217-2015-I-A-937-2022(1).odt
applicant has been convicted and considering the fact that during
the subsistence of all earlier passports the applicant has not
violated the conditions imposed on him and in the light of the
Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v.
D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, reported in 1967 AIR
1936 as the right to travel abroad is a facet of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
7. In my opinion, the applicant has made out a case for grant of
relief as prayed for. Hence, following order:
a) The respondents are directed to process the application
of the applicant for renewal of passport and the respondent
No.1 shall not refuse police clearance on the ground of
pendency of present Revision Application.
b) The respondent No.2 shall take decision on the grant of
renewal of passport in accordance with law.
8. The Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of. No
Costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
