‘Mere pendency of criminal case no reason to impound passport’

Kolkata: In a case relating to impounding of a passport of a person who intends to travel abroad for medical treatment, the Calcutta High Court, in its judgement, ruled that law does not mandate that the pendency of a criminal case against the holder of a passport would automatically result in impounding of the passport.

The Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha was hearing a case where the petitioner’s passport was impounded by the passport authorities for non-disclosure of the pendency of a criminal case against him. The court said: “The petitioner has not been convicted by any Court and he has to be presumed ‘not guilty’, as of now. Right to life includes the right to modern medical treatment. The petitioner has disclosed that he intends to go abroad for medical treatment.”

Further, the court observed: “There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner would take steps to escape from the country and immediate action is required to be taken by impounding his passport. The criminal case was pending against the petitioner for more than five years prior to renewal of his passport.”

The court said: “Mere pendency of a criminal case shall not be the assigned reason to impound his passport. If the petitioner can satisfy the authority that he has genuine reason(s) to travel abroad and he would return to the country within a specified period, then the authority shall take a decision to return his passport.”

In 2012, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner by a distant relative for allegedly not returning money borrowed for buying shares. No charges were framed against the petitioner then. In 2018, the petitioner applied for renewal and had selected the option ‘no’ where it was required of him to declare any criminal cases against him in any court of law. The petitioner submitted since there was no case initiated against him in 2018, he chose that option. However, on the basis of a police report, he was served a show cause notice by the passport authorities, asking him to reply within 14 days. He also paid a fine of Rs 5000.

Petitioner’s counsel submitted that even before the end of the 14 days, within just six days the passport was impounded and no reason was recorded for the action which was taken solely on the basis of the report by an external authority (police).