Prakash Kumar Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhokta, learned CGC appearing for Union of India besides Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

¶16

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order at Annexure-3, whereby, the application moved by him as per Annexure-2 seeking permission to travel abroad has been rejected.

¶17

Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pendency of the criminal case, the permission to travel to China by the petitioner has been declined. The further submission is that the trial in C.T. Case No.517 of 2013 has not commenced yet. The contention is that the petitioner cannot be denied to travel abroad for pendency of a criminal case. Apart from that, the submission of Mr. Sahoo,

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

learned counsel is that the Court’s permission is necessary and unless the same is obtained, the petitioner would not be able to travel to China with a Passport granted to him by the Passport Authority, however, the learned Court below did not consider and appreciate the same in its proper perspective and rejected the request vide Annexure-3, which is, therefore, liable to be set aside followed by consequential directions issued.

¶20

Mr. Bhokta, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India refers to Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs PSP Division, a copy of which is produced at the time of hearing, to submit that the NOC from the Court concerned is to be obtained, while considering issuance of the Passport. A reference is made to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit already filed by the Union of India, whereby, it was informed to the petitioner to apply for Passport with an order of acquittal or NOC in view of the Gazette notification dated 25^th August, 1993.

¶21

The petitioner has been chargesheeted for an offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. It is claimed that even though the charge is framed against the petitioner, no witness has been examined from the side of the Prosecution, hence, trial is yet to commence. Under such circumstances, according to Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner should be allowed to travel to China with the permission granted. In so far as the Office Memorandum dated 10^th October, 2019 of Government of India produced today, it is made to reveal that NOC is required from all such Courts by the applicants before demanding issuance of Passports. Annexure-A to the counter

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

affidavit also reveals that the applicant is either to obtain NOC or an acquittal order from the Court concerned while seeking grant of Passport. In the case at hand, the petitioner is to face trial in C.T. Case No.517 of 2013 but it has not commenced at least till 8^th November, 2023. It is difficult to predict as to when the trial would be concluded. The purpose for which the permission was sought for as per Annexure-2 is to travel to China to meet his son, who is staying there till date, as further informed.

¶24

Considering the facts pleaded on record and the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and even though a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, which is on the strength of a report lodged in 2013 and in the meantime, 12 years have gone by and as earlier stated, there is no commencement of trial as yet and one cannot predict as to when it would be over, this Court is of the view that such permission should have been granted by the learned Court below instead of rejection order i.e. Annexure-3. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner should be allowed the permission to travel abroad subject to suitable conditions imposed by the learned Court below ensuring his attendance at the time of trial, as such a course of action would serve the purpose and to meet the ends of justice.

¶25

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 8^th November, 2023 at Annexure-3 is hereby set aside with the direction to the learned J.M.F.C., Khariar to grant the NOC and to impose

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

Alok

¶29

conditions on the petitioner additionally demanding the travel itinerary before leaving India and upon receiving the same and demand such other conditions as deemed necessary and expedient.

¶30

Issue urgent certified copy as per rule.

¶31

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 18-Sep-2025 11:24:16

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Prakash Kumar Choudhury v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Kumar Choudhury v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Behera Vs Collector, Ganjam

Mihira Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Tirtha Sahu Vs Mst.Sarojini Bhoi

Rudra Pratap Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sumanta Sundara Vs State of Odisha

Subasini Jena Vs Collector and District Magistrate , Bhadrak