Whether the accused should obtain permission for renewal of passport from the court where criminal case is pending?

The Respondent shall process the application of the petitioner for renewal of Passport without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is travelling abroad, then the Petitioner would be required to seek permission from the Court where criminal case is pending.

 In the High Court of Bombay

(Before S.V. Gangapurwala and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.)

Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs State of Maharashtra and Another.

Writ Petition No. 384 of 2019

Decided on August 23, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992 : (2022) 3 AIR Bom R (Cri) 687.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Mere Pendency Of Criminal Case Not Sufficient to Refuse Passport Renewal

 In the facts of the case merely because the offence under

Sections 406, 420, 120(b) read with 34 of IPC is pending against

the applicant, the said fact by itself is not sufficient to deny the

right of the applicant for renewal of the passport.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1193 OF 2022

Nijal Navin Shah  V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 23, 2022.

Citation: 2023 Lawweb (Bom HC ) 8.

Print Page

Whether the accused should obtain permission for renewal of passport from the court where criminal case is pending?

 i) The Respondent shall process the application of the

petitioner for renewal of Passport without insisting for

permission of the Court, where a criminal case is

pending against the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is

travelling abroad, then the Petitioner would be required

to seek permission from the Court where criminal case is

pending.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.384 OF 2019

Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala  V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

DATED : 23rd AUGUST 2022

Print Page

Whether the passport authority can refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal?

 Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the

applicant is facing trial in a criminal court.

Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the

appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal

appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo is for a

period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse

the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of

the criminal appeal.

The passport authority is directed to renew the

passport of the applicant without raising the objection

relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this

Court. Subject to the other conditions being fulfilled,

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1342/2017

VANGALA KASTURI RANGACHARYULU  Vs

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI

Dated: 27-09-2021

Print Page

Whether the accused must obtain the trial court's permission to renew the passport if a higher court stays the criminal proceeding?

Arguably, case of the petitioner falls into this category. Be that as it may. (c) The impugned Endorsement is structured on the ground that a criminal case is pending inter alia against the petitioner in C.C.No.11606/2020, in the Court of learned

XVII ACMM, Bengaluru City. The same having been challenged in W.P.No.14431/2020, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has stayed all further proceedings before the Trial judge vide interim order dated 10.12.2020, is not in dispute. That being the position, the respondent- RPO is not justified in asking the petitioner to go the Trial the learned Trial

Judge to seek permission to travel aboard in the ‘stayed proceedings’. The Notification dated 25.08.1993 purportedly issued under Section 22 of the Act, normally expects an

order of the kind and this norm is applicable in ordinary circumstances, in the sense that the criminal proceedings are not stayed and hands of the Trial Judge are free to work, and not in the circumstances that have tied his hands. A contention to the

contrary amounts to asking the citizen to do an impossible act. Ordinarily, an act impossible of performance is treated as either having been accomplished or waived vide lex non cogit ad impossibilia which Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th

Edition, Butterworths Wadhwa at pages 326 to 328 extensively discusses. Thus, the insistence on production of an order as mentioned in the impugned Endorsement is not justified.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION NO.19203 OF 2021(GM-PASS); 

KASTURI RAJUPETA v. UNION OF INDIA

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

Dated:17 MARCH, 2022

Print Page