... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2008 State through P.I. attached to Mapusa Police Station, Mapusa, Goa. ... Petitioner v e r s u s Shri Ashish alias Atmaram Tulsidas Xete Narvekar alias Shirodkar, r/o Plot No.C-5, House No.298/9, Ganeshpuri, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa. ... Respondent Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner. Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Respondent. ... 2 ... CORAM: A. P. LAWANDE, J. DATE : 30th September, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and Mr. Thali for the respondent. 2. Rule, by consent heard forthwith. 3. By this Revision Application, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.12.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Panaji in Criminal Appeal No.90/2007, by which, the Additional Sessions Judge-2 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa in ... 3 ... Criminal Case No.33/2005/B. 4. The respondent is the accused no.7 in the above case. The respondent filed an application dated 06.09.2007 seeking permission from the Magistrate for applying and obtaining a passport. The Magistrate by order dated 16.10.2007 held that there is no provision under the Passport Act to obtain permission from the Magistrate. As against this order, the respondent preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court, at Panaji, which was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge-2, at Panaji. By the impugned judgment and order, the Additional Sessions Judge-2 has allowed the appeal and has held that the respondent is entitled for no objection/permission to apply for passport as required under the Passport Act 1967. Undisputedly, pursuant to the said order, the passport has already been issued to the respondent. ... 4 ... 5. Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the applicant, at the outset submitted that the appeal filed by the respondent was not maintainable either under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or under any other provisions of law. He therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Even on merits, Mr. Ferreira submitted that the impugned order is patently unsustainable in law. Mr. Ferreira submitted that the passport has been already issued to the respondent and the petitioner is not pressing any relief on merits but the impugned judgment be set aside. 6. Mr. Thali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent fairly conceded that the appeal filed by the respondent was not maintainable and he therefore, is not in a position to defend the ... 5 ... impugned order. 7. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the impugned order came to be passed after the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing before the Appellate Court gave no objection. It is really surprising that a Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State was totally ignorant of the provision of law and that she was not aware that an appeal was not maintainable either under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code or any other provisions of law. One fails to understand the reason which prompted the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to give no objection when the appeal itself was not maintainable. Mr. Thali is right in conceding that the appeal itself was not maintainable. On this short ground alone, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set ... 6 ... aside. I do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the matter since the impugned order is liable to set aside on the ground of maintainability. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated 26.10.2008 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.