THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1919 of 2010 (Dated : 08-11-2010) Between: Mandava Dinesh S/o Ramaiah R/o Balaji Nagar, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District. …Petitioner A n d State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1919 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed in an unnumbered petition in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2010 on the file of Special Judge for trial of offences under the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereby and whereunder, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the criminal court is competent to consider the application for grant of permission to the accused to travel abroad pending criminal case and therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner before the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs/STS (POA) Act is not justified. Learned counsel refers the Notification dated 25.8.1993 whereunder, certain guidelines have been issued for grant of permission to the accused to travel abroad by the criminal court pending trial of the criminal case. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in Dhiren Baxi v. Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad[1], Shyam Dwarakadas Chabria v. Regional Passport Officer[2] and Deepak Dwarakasingh Chhabria v. Union of India[3]. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned in the revision. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.128 of 2010 of Nellore Rural P.S registered for the offences under Sections 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989. He has been arrested and released on bail, as per orders dated 24.6.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2010. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking the following relief:- “ It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to grant of passport even in the above crime was registered by the 1st respondent by modifying the bail order in the above Crl.M.P.No.84/2010 in the interest of justice. Otherwise the petitioners will be suffer loss and injury”. 6. As seen from the judgment in Dhiren Baxi’s case ( 1 supra), the Government of India issued notification dated 25.8.1993 with regard to the procedure to be followed in respect of persons, who intend to travel abroad and against whom a criminal case is pending. Much emphasis has been laid on para 9 of the cited judgment, which reads as hereunder:- “9. By the notification dated 25th August, 1993, the earlier notification was substituted granting exemption to the citizens 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 order from the Court concerned permitted them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-sec (2) of S.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 Court referred to above, if the Court specifies 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 abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of 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; © any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh 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 authority that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued”. 7. The relief prayed for by the petitioner in his application is modification of the bail order. In case, the petitioner opts to obtain permission by virtue of the Notification dated 25th August, 1993, he has to make a fresh application, so as to bring his case within the purview of the said Notification. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application in tune with the notification dated 25.8.1993. On such application being made, the learned Special Judge has to consider the same and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the notification referred to above. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.08-11-2010 Note:- Issue CC in three days (B/o) RAR U R G E N T (CC in 3 days) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1919 of 2010 Transferred to CMSO RAR (Dated : 08-11-2010) [1] AIR 2003 GUJARAT 108 [2] 2000 CRL. L.J.2942 [3] AIR 1997 BOMBAY 181(1)