APPA. 1108-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1108 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1301 OF 2003 Bharat S. Shah ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent *** Mr. Chandan Salgaonkar, for the Applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State. The applicant has filed this application seeking direction that Passport Authorities may be directed to renew his passport for the maximum permissible period. 2. The applicant is original accused No. 3 in MCOC Special Case No. 4 of 2001. The Special Judge was pleased to acquit the accused/applicant of the offence punishable under the M.C.O.C. Act. The applicant was, however, convicted for the offence punishable APPA. 1108-11 - 2 - under Section 118 of the I. P. Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year year and pay fine of Rs. five lakhs. The applicant has paid fine of Rs. five lakh and has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment since he is in jail for more than one year. An appeal which is filed by the State for enhancement and against the order of acquittal, is pending in this Court. The appellant has also filed appeal against the order of conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2003 and his conviction has been stayed by this Court by the order passed in Criminal Application No. 670 of 2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2003. It is submitted that on several occasions accused has been permitted to go abroad by this Court, during pendency of the trial and also during pendency of the appeal. Reliance is placed on order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 27th July, 2010 in Criminal Application No. 886 of 2010. By the said order, this Court was pleased to direct the Respondent Passport Authority to consider renewal of the passport for a period of one year by the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai. It is submitted that the present application is filed for renewal of the passport. The applicant had made application before the Passport Authorities for renewal in June, 2011. However, the Passport Authorities had directed the applicant to obtain permission from this Court in view of notification dated 25th August, 1993. It is submitted that the applicant has to go abroad on several occasions in connection with his business transactions, and therefore, a direction may be given to renew the passport for the maximum permissible period. A further affidavit has been filed by the applicant dated 13th September 2011 in which it is stated that while APPA. 1108-11 - 3 - going to some countries, the names of which are mentioned in the annexure to the said affidavit, the passport has to be valid for at least six months in some cases and three months in some cases from the date of entry in the said country. It is submitted that since permission is accorded only for a period of one year, it becomes difficult to obtain VISAs of the countries which are mentioned in the additional affidavit. It is therefore, submitted that a suitable direction be given to the Passport Authorities, as prayed by the applicant. 3. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that an appeal filed by the applicant is pending in this Court and the State also has filed an appeal for enhancement of the sentence and against the order of acquittal of the applicant for the offence under the M.C.O.C. Act. It is submitted that applicant is likely to abscond and therefore, the application for renewal of passport beyond the period of one year is vehemently opposed by the learned APP. 4. After having heard both the counsel at length, in our view, since it is an admitted position that the applicant has in the past traveled abroad and has returned back and has complied with the conditions imposed by this Court, there is no reason why permission to go abroad should not be granted. However, the only question which remains to be considered is the period for which the passport may be renewed by the Passport Authority. A notification has been issued by the Jt. Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs dated 25th August, 1993 by exercising powers conferred by the Clause (a) of Section 22 of the APPA. 1108-11 - 4 - Passports Act, 1967. It is mentioned in the said notification that the person against whom criminal proceedings are pending may apply to the Court for seeking permission to travel abroad which permission can be granted, subject to the conditions mentioned therein which are enumerated in the said notification. 5. Perusal of the notification which is annexed at Exhibit “C” to the application discloses that under normal circumstances, permission to travel abroad can be granted for a period of one year. However, the court can specify the period for which the passport can be issued by the Passport Authorities, by virtue of condition (a) which reads as under - “(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 one year; (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period 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.” 6. This Court had an occasion to consider the effect of the notification in two cases. In the case of – Shayam Dwarkadas APPA. 1108-11 - 5 - Chabria, Petitioner Vs. The Regional Passport Officer & Anr., Respondents1, the Court has taken into consideration the circumstances under which such a permission can be granted and has also considered the relevant provision of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and also the notification dated 25th August 1993 and has observed that if an application is received by the concerned court seeking permission to go abroad, the said application should be decided expeditiously and a further direction was given to the Passport Authorities to issue passport. The learned Single Judge has relied on the judgments in the case of – (1) Deepak Dwarkasingh Chhabria, Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Anr., Respondents2; (2) Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India3. 7. Taking into consideration the above settled position in law and the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, it would be appropriate if direction is given to the Passport Authorities to renew the passport of the applicant for a period of two years, subject to the condition that whenever the applicant seeks to go abroad, he shall give intimation to respondent No. 1, and shall also give intimation after his return from abroad to respondent No.1. Criminal application is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [ A. M. THIPSAY, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.] 1 2002(2) Bom. C.R. 609 2 A.I.R. 1997 Bom. 181 3 A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597