IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2009 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1469 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 1141/09 IN CC.225/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- S.K. ASOK KUMAR, S/O. KUTTAN PANICKER, AGED 52 YEARS, SREE SASTHA, ARALUMOODU. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 97 OF 2008 OF NEYYATINKARA POLICE STATION) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJED ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2009 ALONG WITH CRMC 1466/09, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.Nos.1466 & 1469 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of April, 2009 COMMON ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The common petitioner in these petitions is one of the accused in Crime No.95 of 2008 of Neyyattinkara Police Station and now pending as C.C.No.236 of 2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M -I, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,188 and 388 read with 149 IPC and Sections 38 and 42 of the Kerala Police Act. He is also one of the accused in Crime No.97of 2008 of Neyyattinkara Police Station and now pending as C.C.No.225 of 2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,188 and 283 read with 149 IPC and Sections 38 and 52 of the Kerala Police Act. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner is an advocate by profession and having 29 years of practice as a lawyer and that the aforesaid crimes came to be registered against him due to political animosity. As per CMP Nos.1140 and 1141 of 2009 in C.C.Nos. 236 and 225 of 2008 respectively, the petitioner moved the Magistrate under Section 22(a) of the Passports Act,1967 seeking permission to travel outside India for a period of six months. According to the Crl.M.C.Nos.1466 & 1469/2009 2 petitioner, he has been chosen to appear for the Interpol India to defend a case. The permission was sought in accordance with notification No.GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 (published in the Gazette of India, Extra. Part II Section 3(i) dated 25.8.1993) issued by the Central Government under Clause(a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967. As per the said notification it is only if the criminal Court before which the case of the applicant is pending permits him to depart from India, will the applicant be exempted from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub- section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act and the same shall be, subject to conditions such as the period specified by the Court for the issue of Passport etc. The said notification reads as follows:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.GSR 298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts 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 and who produce Crl.M.C.Nos.1466 & 1469/2009 3 orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of clause(f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:- a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued- i. for the period specified in order of the the court referred to above, if the court specified a period for which the passport has to be issued; or ii. if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel aboard is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year; iii. if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period of validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or iv. if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order. (b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the Court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified; Crl.M.C.Nos.1466 & 1469/2009 4 c) any passport issued in terms of a(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad. d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport- issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned appear before at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued. “ Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 reads as follows:- “6(2) Subject to the 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 one or more of the following grounds and on no other ground, namely:-. (a) .............; (b) .............;. (c) .............; (d) .............; (e)................; (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; Crl.M.C.Nos.1466 & 1469/2009 5 (g).............; (h)...............” 4. In the normal course the above C.C. cases are not likely to come up for trial at least for a period of 9 or 10 months. Hence there was no justification on the part of the Magistrate in refusing the permission sought for to go abroad for a period of six months. 5. Accordingly, the impugned common order is set aside and CMP Nos.1140 and 1141 of 2009 in C.C.Nos. 236 and 225 of 2008 will stand allowed permitting the petitioner to go abroad for a period of six months. For that purpose he shall be entitled to apply for a passport. The petitioner shall execute the necessary bond before the court below for such amount as may be specified by that Court undertaking to appear before the Court at the time of trial of the above cases. The period of 6 months shall begin to run from the date of issue of passport for which purpose the petitioner shall make an application within three weeks from today. These Crl.M.Cs are allowed, as above. Dated this the 30 th day of April, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj