Sri Shravan Kumar Rachamalla vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 4056 Tel

        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

              WRIT PETITION No.26689 of 2023
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel representing learned Deputy Solicitor General of India

appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the

present writ petition reads as under:

"to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in refusing the petitioner's passport Application vide File No.HY3065475636723 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust unreasonable and in violation of Articles 19(1)(d) & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue passport to the petitioner."

PERUSED THE RECORD.

3. A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner

herein is an accused in Crime No.666 of 2020 for the offences

punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 509 read with

Section 34 of IPC and also in Crime No.510 of 2021, for the

offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 506, 509 read

SN,J WP.26689 of 2023

with Section 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation,

the Investigating Officer had filed charge sheet. The same

were taken on file vide C.C.Nos.3327 of 2020 and 3683 of

2021 both are pending on the file of the I Additional Junior

Civil Judge - cum - XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar.

4. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

made an online application seeking issuance of passport, for

his job purpose. There are two criminal cases registered

against the petitioner vide C.C.Nos.3327 of 2020 and 3683 of

2021 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum -

XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar and

in the said two cases trial is not commenced. Whileso, on

08.08.2023, respondent No.2 has issued a notice to the

petitioner calling the explanation for suppressing the criminal

case vide Crime No.510 of 2021 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 506 and 509 read with Section 34

of IPC of RGIA Police Station, Cyberabad. Immediately, the

petitioner approached respondent No.2 and shown the details

of the cases as stated above. The passport has not been

issued to the petitioner on the ground that criminal cases are

pending against him. Pendency of the said C.Cs. is not an

SN,J WP.26689 of 2023

impediment to issue the passport to the petitioner and

ultimately, sought to direct respondent No.2 to issue passport

to the petitioner.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the

petitioner made an online application on 26.04.2023 seeking

issuance of passport. In view of the pendency of the aforesaid

cases the passport is not issued to the petitioner.

6. Here, it is apt to state that in Vangala Kasturi

Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1, the

Honourable Apex Court considering the provisions under

Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, held that even

pendency of a Criminal Appeal is not a bar to issue the

passport.

7. It is represented by both learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the

respondents that the subject issue in the present writ petition

squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 11.03.2022,

passed in W.P.No.12585 of 2022.

2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572

SN,J WP.26689 of 2023

8. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013

(15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of

Delhi at para 13 observed as under:

"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

9. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of

India and another reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, and in

Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and

others reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 very

clearly observed that the right to travel abroad is a part

of a personal liberty and the right to possess a passport

etc., can only be curtailed in accordance with law only

and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone. The

procedure must also be just, fair and reasonable.

10. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra

Pradesh High Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP)

in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and another at

paras 4, 5 and 6, it is observed as under:

"This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017, was dealing

SN,J WP.26689 of 2023

with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport.

This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10

(d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction 'and' makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post-conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case / cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.

11. In the given facts and circumstances of the case,

the respondent No.2 is directed to consider petitioner's

passport Application vide File No.HY3065475636723 in

the light of the observations of the Apex Court in the

various judgments (referred to and extracted above),

and issue passport to the petitioner subject to the

petitioner fulfilling the required conditions, ignoring the

pendency of C.C.Nos.3327 of 2020 and 3683 of 2021 on

the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum -

SN,J WP.26689 of 2023

XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar, within a period of two weeks from the

date of receipt of the copy of the order.

13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed

of.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J

Date:16.11.2023

Dua