Allowed

Kanhaiyalal Bhavarlal Purohit v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2010APPA/634/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that under the Passports Act, since the applicant was acquitted by the trial court, the Central Government's Notification allowing exemptions based on court orders applies. The court directed that the passport authority may issue a renewed passport for two years if the applicant complies with other requirements.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the passport authority to renew the applicant's passport for two years upon compliance with other requirements.

Kanhaiyalal Bhavarlal Purohit Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.634 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1062 OF 2003

¶6

Kanhaiyalal Bhavarlal Purohit. ... Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

Ms. Kusum Maurya i/b Ravi Kadam for the applicant.

¶10

Mr. D.A. Nalawade for Union of India.

¶11

Ms. Usha V. Kejariwal, A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 13TH AUGUST, 2010.

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

The applicant is original accused 23 in Sessions Case No.104 of 2001. By the judgment impugned in this appeal dated 30/4/2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara, he has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366, 342, 354, 420, 292, 120-B, 109, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

¶16

AJN

¶17

¶18

(for short, “ the IPC ”). In this application, the applicant has prayed that No Objection may be granted to the applicant for renewal of his passport as required in Clauses 17(b) and (c) of the application for renewal of passport. Clause 17(b) requires the applicant to state whether any criminal proceedings are pending against him in any court in India. The applicant is required to give name of the court, case number and relevant sections of law. Clause 17(c) states that if any criminal proceedings are pending, then the applicant has to furnish No Objection Certificate from the competent court for grant of passport.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 30/4/2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara, is pending in this court, No Objection of this court is required.

¶20

In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the

¶21

AJN

¶22

¶23

relevant portion of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 under which the passport authority can refuse to issue a passport to a person on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him are pending before a Criminal Court in India. It reads thus.

¶24

“6(2) Subject to other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any or more of the following grounds, and on no other grounds, namely;

¶25

(a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx

¶26

(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) xxx xxx xxx”

AJN

Admittedly, the Central Government has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 exempted citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a Criminal Court in India if they produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of clause (f) of subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. The said Notification states that the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued for the period specified in order of the court, if the court specified a period for which the passport has to be issued or if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year.

¶31

It is in view of the above Notification that “No Objection” of this court is required. We have perused the

¶32

¶33

AJN

¶34

impugned judgment. The applicant has been acquitted by the trial court. The allegation against the applicant is not that he has committed rape on the victim but that he had abated the commission of rape by allowing the accused to use his room in the lodge. Considering the fact that the applicant is a permanent resident of Satara and is carrying on business in Satara and that he was acquitted by the trial court, we are of the opinion that the applicant's passport can be renewed for two years by the passport authority if he has complied with other requirements. Order accordingly. We may not be understood as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the instant appeal.

¶35

Criminal application is disposed of.

¶36

[MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

Kanhaiyalal Bhavarlal Purohit v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiyalal Bhavarlal Purohit v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Jitendra Vishwanath Devdharkar and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gautamchandra Salerajji Chopda and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Jitendra Vishwanath Devdharkar and Ors.

Pintya @ Pravin Rajaram Wadkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pintya @ Pravin Rajaram Wadkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kanhaiyalal Bhavarlal Purohit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.