1 wp1702.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1702 OF 2010 Shri Amit Suryakant Dalvi ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Rahul Arote for petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ DATED:- AUGUST 30, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. By this Writ Petition, it is prayed that the Respondent No. 2 be directed to forward correct report pertaining to the Petitioner to the Regional Passport Office, Thane expeditiously and for further direction against the Respondent No.3 to decide the application for issuance of fresh passport to the Petitioner at the earliest. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Police Authorities have recommended to the Passport Office not to issue passport to the Petitioner. Such recommendation has been made inspite of the fact that there is no criminal case pending against the Petitioner 2 wp1702.10 as of now. The Respondent- Police Authorities however, have relied on prosecution against the Petitioner for offence punishable amongst others under section 3 of the MCOC Act. The fact remains that the said prosecution against the Petitioner has ended in acquittal of the Petitioner. The appeal filed against the order of conviction before this Court has been allowed and the Petitioner admittedly, has been acquitted of the said charge. 3. The learned APP on instruction states that there is no other criminal case pending against the Petitioner. If it is so, the fact that the Petitioner was prosecuted for MCOCA offence in the past cannot be the basis to make recommendation not to issue passport to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been acquitted of the said offence almost two years back by this Court. It would be a different matter, if the State were to question the correctness of the said decision. In that situation, it was possible for the Police Authorities to take a stand that the order of acquittal relating to offence of MCOCA charges is still subjudice. That is not the case on hand. In such a situation, past criminal case, which has ended up in acquittal of the Petitioner, cannot be the basis to recommend to the passport authority not to issue passport to the Petitioner. In the circumstances, we direct the Respondent No.2 to reexamine the case of the Petitioner and make appropriate recommendation, as may be advised in accordance with law. That be done within four weeks from today. 4. We make it clear that if there is any other tangible material available with the 3 wp1702.10 Police Authorities involving the Petitioner to justify the recommendation, which was made in the past, it would be open to the Police Authorities to advert to the same in the report to be forwarded to the passport office Respondent No.3, who will have to consider the application made by the Petitioner for issuance of fresh passport on its own merits in accordance with law. The Respondent No.3 in turn, shall dispose of the application filed by the Petitioner within six weeks from the receipt of the intimation/report from the local Police Authorities. 5. Petition disposed of accordingly. (U.D.SALVI, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)